User talk:Kgfisher

Santa Fe Prep

Howdy,

No, you're absolutely correct. That section didn't belong. I've been watching that article a bit, as it seems to be a magnet for junk like that being added time and time again. However, I'm not the one that undid your edit. It looks like it happened here. Frankly, I should have removed that section a while back: in addition to having a very botched understanding of the Constitution, it's full of other problems...

I'm going to go remove it, actually. The one thing I'd suggest is that, when removing whole sections, I tend to leave a note on the article's Talk page ("discussion" tab) explaining it, and make a quick note in my Edit summary that I did so, so that people can get the whole issue and comment if needed. This isn't applicable when the section is outright nonsense and anyone would make the same decision, but this is sort of a gray area, so it's better to tread cautiously and explain it. I'm going to go in and take this out, so I'll handle putting the note on the talk page.

Very minor note: when adding content to talk pages, it's customary to add the content to the bottom of the page, not the top. No big deal; I screwed that one up many, many times when I started out. Thanks, by the way, for helping to clean the article up! Fogster (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The edit mentioned above was most certainly not vandalism. You removed a section that shouldn't have been there in the first place, and you even used an Edit summary to properly explain what you were doing, something that many people overlook.

I confess to being confused, though, about the vandalism warning you're referring to. Your username, Kgfisher, has never been warned for vandalism, nor has the IP you initially contacted me from (User talk:71.213.139.224). The only person I think I left a vandalism warning for on that article was User talk:207.66.36.66, who inserted this, this, this, etc...

I might be overlooking something (please let me know if I am), but as best as I can tell, you were never "in the doghouse" to begin with. Your edit was the opposite of vandalism: you helped to clean up an article. You didn't do anything wrong. Fogster (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]