User talk:24.183.100.99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edit to Diana Ross Playground

Your recent edit to Diana Ross Playground (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Diana Ross. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ^demon[omg plz] 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert your contribution to Diana Ross Playground. However, I did revert Diana Ross, because I failed to see a connection between Diana Ross' 1999 incident and something with Clay Aiken in 2006, especially with absolutely no transition. This entirely random fact was put in the middle of the paragraph with no explanation, and that's why I tagged it as vandalism. ^demon[omg plz] 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I do not see how you can fail to notice the relevance: Ross's action was thought to be amusing and was well-accepted by all, clay's was not. Obvoiusly Ross had committed the more greivous of invasions to personal space, and such incidents are often noted by historical incidents of great similarity, as someone reading the article specifically for the incident in question would be given relevant knowledge and further ideas for research by the reference, as well as historical context being applied to the situation in question. This mention may be parenthetical in nautre, but I assure you it is legitimate.

I understand your point now, and I see where you're coming from with the argument. But that needs explaining. I didn't get it at first. Wikipedia articles should explain gaps in logic like that, in case someone doesn't get it like I didn't. And your talk page explanation didn't clarify, it just said the stupid editor shouldn't revert unless they understand. I had to come here to figure it out. Finally, a comment like that is, at best, commentary. Whie it may be accurate and appropriate commentary, it is still commentary. Seeing as commentary is inherently POV, it does not belong in the article. ^demon[omg plz] 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I never said you were stupid, i was asking you to show my writing the courtesy of asking for explanation before deletion. A really good editor would first find proper usage for the information, like, say moving into a trivia section (which i wouldn't have minded) to declare it nonsense was the first insult thrown in this matter.

secondly, it is not commentary, it is the relationship of two factual situations, and secondly Wiki must accept some commentary else EVERY single sentence would have to be phrased as "Subject did verb on date" ending in "subject died". You must define for me what you consider to separte commentary from legitimate text, as that is now sticking in my craw with everything else above. thank you!--24.183.100.99 02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.183.100.99.html"