User talk:Varsdra
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was my intention, and it was a good edit. Those tags are excessive and unnecessary. I benefitted Wikipedia, and will cancel your ill-judged edit. Varsdra 19:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your allegation that I removed "content" is false. The tags I removed were commentary on the article, not "content" of the article. What am I supposed to do about the fact that you are making false allegations against me? Your comments may make people think I am an irresponsible person who is seeking to harm Wikipedia, when there is no truth in any such allegation. Is there any means of appealing and seeking redress for this wrong? Varsdra 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I commented on the talk page. Why didn't you check that? If you don't apologise, what's the best place to appeal for a review of your comments? Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Varsdra 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why didn't you give me any credit for the presentational improvements I made to the article? Don't you agreed it looked awful before? Varsdra 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not, because you returned it to the same state. Varsdra 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now I see that you didn't even take the trouble to write the comment yourself. You just used a template which enables you to make false allegations in one second without even stopping to think. This is very unfair as newer users will not be aware of such techniques. Varsdra 19:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not, because you returned it to the same state. Varsdra 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why didn't you give me any credit for the presentational improvements I made to the article? Don't you agreed it looked awful before? Varsdra 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I commented on the talk page. Why didn't you check that? If you don't apologise, what's the best place to appeal for a review of your comments? Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Varsdra 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your allegation that I removed "content" is false. The tags I removed were commentary on the article, not "content" of the article. What am I supposed to do about the fact that you are making false allegations against me? Your comments may make people think I am an irresponsible person who is seeking to harm Wikipedia, when there is no truth in any such allegation. Is there any means of appealing and seeking redress for this wrong? Varsdra 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) After seeing your post on the Admin Noticeboard (AN), I think there may be some misunderstanding. Two points: 1) The use of templates (such as the Uw-delete1) is common - I've used it a few times this week myself. The template form is used for convenience, yes, but also to allow the editor using it to respond as completely and unemotionally as possible. Uw-delete1 is the most mild in the series of deletion templates. As noted by others at AN, the template is pretty reserved in its tone. 2) One of the core ideas in the Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith (AGF). While I can't speak for User:Purgatory Fubar, from my perspective they appear to have followed AGF by using the most mild template in a edit. Please let me know if you have any questions - I'd be glad to help. -- MarcoTolo 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)