Bryan Derksen wrote:
The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
In all fairness, the user that blanked it twice gave no edit summary
whatsoever and those two blankings were the only edits that user has
ever done on Wikipedia. The objectionable part of the article is only
obvious if you read all the way through the text, whereas the signs
suggesting that the blanking is vandalism are plainly obvious.
In all fairness, the user who performed the blanking was never asked why
they were blanking the article, or told that it wasn't the right thing
to be doing.
So the other take-home message is that when blanking
an article you
should give some indication of _why_ you're blanking it. Saves trouble
all around.
And the other /other/ take-home message is that if you're going to
revert someone, and they revert back, discuss it with them! I'm sick and
tired of finding user accounts with many many contributions which were
all reverted as "vandalism", and yet there is nothing on their talk page.
--
Alphax -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP