Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sleepnomore 19:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue what you're talking about; please provide citations of said removal of content or vandalism, and I'd be happy to talk more. Jason 20:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- please see Jesse James Garrett. You cannot remove entire sections of an article that provide a neutral point of view. vandalism. You are free to edit the sections if you feel they need additional information, but they cannot be removed.
- comment cowardly unsigned by Sleepnomore
- As usual, since this was the second time I had to warn you, I assumed you would have understood the warning was from me. Its obvious that anyone can look in a history to see who edited a particular comment so there can be no "cowards" on Wikipedia. BTW. I'm posting this from a hotel IP address while on travel. In your infinite wisdom, I'm sure you consider this "cowardly" as well. - 68.58.169.30 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Sleepnomore out of town)
- Nope, I just figured that since it's not difficult to log in no matter where you are, you were posing without signing for a reason. Perhaps I was wrong; for that I apologize. But you might do us the favor of signing in when you post, so that we can keep track of comments you've made without referring to some obscure reference chart you maintain of which IP addresses you've used in the past. Jason 23:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Where does WP policy state that I cannot edit a page to make it more concise? When someone creates a new section on a page, it always must remain, for all eternity? That makes no sense. (Also, to quote from the Vandalism section you linked to above: "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.") You didn't like how I edited the page, fine, but you certainly are not providing a neutral point of view, since you included a link in the section to your own criticism of Mr. Garrett, on your own website. That's the very definition of bias. Seriously, Sleepnomore, this is about to go to an RfC. Jason 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you feel it needs to go to an RfC, please do so. My edits make Mr Garret's article neutral because there are those on YOUR side of the camp that believe he walks on water. There are those on MY side of the camp that believe otherwise. You cannot remain neutral on Mr Garret's article without providing both points of view. I added my own criticism because I don't intend to hide the side that I stay on. - 68.58.169.30 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Sleepnomore out of town)
- We'll see where the current proposals to unlock the pages go. But you seem oddly attached to the notion that I'm in some camp on this -- that I'm somehow affiliated with Mr. Garrett, his toadie, or some such nonsense. This couldn't be further from the truth; I'm just a web programmer and information architect that happens to know the space pretty well, has read enough in the area to consider myself knowledgable, and doesn't feel that the so-called criticism of Mr. Garrett has risen to the level that it deserves mention here. Perhaps the criticism of the term Ajax has, but that of Mr. Garrett has not. Jason 23:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)