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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]