Andrew eagles

Warning level 2; Blanking.

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Office of Special Affairs. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleting of info from Mike Rinder and Office of Special Affairs

Unfortunately removal of large amounts of info without consensus is considered vandalism (see WP:VAN) and you are about to break the 3 revert rule WP:3RR which will result in your being blocked from editing. Write you reasoning on each article's respective talk page and we'll go from there. _{ĢĿ€Ñ §τοĿĿ€Ŗγ}^Ť_č 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of large amounts of info without consensus is not ALWAYS considered vandalism. Each bit of info that is removed must be analyzed to see whether or not deletion is a correct action. --Nikitchenko 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, what are the references regarding Scarff? Please let me know as soon as possible. --Nikitchenko 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Correcting of info from Mike Rinder and Office of Special Affairs

Glen, you are mistaken on what is considered vandalism. Removing incorrect & misleading data from Wikipedia is not considered Vandalism. To quote the article on vandalism; 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, is not vandalism.' It is true you are about to break the 3 revert rule, so please don't do this. Thanks. Andy

Blocked for violation of 3 revert rule

You've already been warned by other users about breaking the 3 revert rule but regrettably you've done it on Mike Rinder and Office of Special Affairs. I've blocked you for 24 hours as a result. Please don't start edit wars - they are not an acceptable editing tactic. -- ChrisO 00:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)