User talk:Johnnie Mae

I read the rule, "Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Instead of facts about the alderman's record, the passage in question gives undue weight to negative innuendo. Perhaps the presumably positive reference to Hairston's vote on the parking meters should be removed as well? Johnnie Mae (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Johnnie Mae
 * Do not remove properly sourced information (which you did) simply because you don't like it. That is a policy violation. If you feel that some of the article has undue weight, discuss on the article's talk page and wait for a consensus rather than repeatedly removing it. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. We have policies and rules. Cresix (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Leslie Hairston, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Leslie Hairston, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Leslie Hairston, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Leslie Hairston. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.