Drdan322

October 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.--John (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

To what do you refer, John? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdan322 (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove referenced information from articles if you wish to be able to continue to edit here. --John (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not mere commentary nor is it 'personal analysis'. The Wesleyan item, though 'referenced' has repeatedly debunked as spurious, and is not mentioned at all in Rev. Sidney Lovett's "Order of Our Order". Is Wikipedia meant to be accurate or not? Golly, and so quick to threaten, too ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdan322 (talk • contribs)

Removing sourced information is a no-no. See WP:BRD; if someone reverts your edit you should then discuss it rather than reinstating the edit. If you don't like how things are done here I am sorry but there it is. Stating that if you do not follow the norms of this site your editing privileges will be revoked is not a threat, it is just stating a fact. --John (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Well then, please explain why reposting of the incorrect and lightly referenced spurious claims of a chapter at Wesleyan are restored but far more archivally robust and correct references to Rev. Sidney Lovett's History of Our Order are serially removed. Who is responsible for those 'no-no's, John John? If you do not wish for accuracy I am sorry but there it is. Pre-emptorial threats to remove privileges indeed have all too many characteristics of bureaucratically authoritarian threat. A self-referential claim emanating from the Wesleyan University Alumni Magazine surpasses the definitive history of Rev. Lovett how, exactly?