User talk:24.80.121.207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Warning

This message is regarding the article Cascade Range. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
--☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 06:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Adam; I noticed your message to me, quoted here:

"This message is regarding the article Cascade Range. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

I am a contributing editor to the [Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia] and sought to contribute to the Cascade Range entry, not "vandalize" it. The geographical description of the Canadian side of the range, and the Canadian perspective on its history, were missing from the article so I added them. Is Wikipedia exclusively for US content only? Is it the mythographical content that bothers you? The role of the range in the Oregon Dispute or the fact of British trade presence there prior to American immigration? I grant that my verbal style is overwrought at points but I'm just trying to be complete. What exactly do you invoke the term "vandalism" against me for?

Blocking me from contributing to Wikipedia will be a great loss, given the amount of new items I've added for various regions, streams and other items concerning British Columbia and its people(s). I didn't realize I wasn't logged in these last few days (I'm registered, though; now that I realize I'm not logged in I can't find my login information but it's here somewhere . . . ) but I've added a slew of entries and amended a few that needed doing, i.e. concerning Canadian geography and history).

If you want I can provide you a list of the few dozen entries I've created and others I've amended so you can purge them from Wikipedia, since you consider my writing to be "vandalizing". I suggest you read the article on "free speech" first (if there is one).

Sincerely

Mike Cleven http://www.cayoosh.net mikeclevenNO@SPAMgmail.com

Mike, it looks like there has been a misunderstanding of your edits. Although you made them in good faith, they were not perceived as such by two different people (both Adam1213 and Essjay) who were checking the recent changes for vandalism. In the future, this is pretty easy to avoid by using an "Edit summary", explaining in a few words what you've done and, if nescessary (for instance, if you delete something) why. This makes it a lot easier for us to determine if you're someone making real, valid, well considered edits (which you apparently did) or if you're a vandal (which we unfortunately see a lot around here). Thanks! --JoanneB 07:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not my turf I thought that it was vandalism but I never reverted the article or edit it better idea what to look for next time) sorry about the warning. Dont feal that you cant edit it. I never reveted the page anyway --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+ 07:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)