User talk:Ice run wild

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dari Taylor. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Keith D (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article which was removed was a party political article by the local conservative candidate. ice run wild

It's still controversial to remove an entire section without any discussion beyond a vague edit summary, though, especially when it pertains to such a controversial issue as expenses. The fact that your edit summary used Taylor's first name implies (rightly or wrongly) that you know her personally, and as such there may be a conflict of interest. Given stories such as this Telegraph one (in which you are mentioned), editors here do tend to narrow their eyes when great chunks of text are removed (or indeed added) that might skew an article. The best thing to do in these circumstances would be to raise the issue on the Talk page of the article concerned, so that any discussion is out in the open. Loganberry (Talk) 14:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Dari Taylor. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

The content you are removing appears to be adequately sourced, meeting Wikipedia guidelines. The subject's desire to remove unflattering material is not reason to continue deleting it, especially if the content has received media coverage. If there is indeed a partisan agenda at work, please use the article discussion page to present evidence, so that editors may discuss the issue there. Thanks, 99.149.84.135 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]