"no, what I'm trying to do is preserve an article from vandalism"

edit

Hi,

the user is apparently acting in good faith, trying to remove material that they honestly believe to be wrong and outdated. Removing such material from a biography of a living person is generally not a bad thing to do, and should not be treated as "vandalism".

Removing warnings from your talk page is absolutely okay, but it also indicates that you have read and understand them. Please take a breath, carefully review the situation and decide if you really want to continue reverting in this unclear situation. Thank you very much.   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • I read the warning, and found it lacking merit. Good faith or not, the user was clearly vandalizing an article over which she claimed ownership, five years after trying to do much the same. There was no claim that controversial, libelous or malicious content was an issue, only that the information was outdated or incorrect. That isn't justification to persistently blank an article. And yes, I would continue reverting. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The AfD nomination may be appropriate. The temporary blocking of the account certainly was--if the user returns from the block for more of the same, I'd request a longer or indefinite sanction. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, well, and shit. Cheers, NeilN. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Preshil

edit

Diannaa, I'm tired of reverting the promotional and copyright violation content, and am waiting for the COI account to be blocked. Any help re: page protection and rev/deletion will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

All done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much, Diannaa. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply