I wonder why there is edit buttons on every page because what you add, it disappears every time. I don't know how selfish there moderators/admins(?) are when they delete your editions, even they are good/real background notes, what they apparently haven't noticed before me -.-
- If the content you added was written with the same kind of grammar you have used here, it was probably removed because it doesn't meet quality standards. If not, what were you referring to? Blue Rook talk contribs 12:11, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes there was some wrong written text on that i noticed it too now when you mentioned it. But my point was that i made speculation at the Charles Logan Day 5 site. Just one line just at the start, which was about that Logan (my opinion) most likely knew that Jack Bauer was still alive. If Graham and Henderson knew, i'm sure that Logan did too. It wasn't mentioned in nowhere in this wiki, but it's not so relevant anyway. The second thing was about editing Curtis Manning background notes and information, about that (pretty much in the end of both seasons 4 and 5) he got shot in his arms.
(In 4 on the left arm by Habib Marwan, and in season 5 on the right arm by Joseph Malina.) However like i said before, these are not important/relevant information, but just something everyone might not have noticed. And i don't know if anyone deleted these with purpose or did the site somehow deleted them. I know the site-speculation sounds crazy but my adding were the only ones that were deleted. I've signed in here so i don't think that it's the reason but if it did not met your quality standards as you said (i assume you mean the way i write. The possible mistakes or that the style is different than on this site etc.), i understand but you could have edited it so it would have met them.
- I already did edit the Curtis Manning note so it met the standards. See here. I moved the iu content into the article body, where such content goes. There isn't any need to restate iu content in the Background/notes section, because that is for oou content. Otherwise, people would just be summarizing random iu facts in the notes section, unnecessarily duplicating it all.
- Also, regarding the Charles Logan Day 5 edit, I cited the speculation policy in the edit summary. Please remember to check out the edit summaries if someone reverts/changes your work, usually it is already explained there. In short, the edit on the Logan sub-page wasn't valid because highly speculative material is not eligible for articles. Blue Rook talk contribs 07:03, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
Alright, i wasn't aware of those things but now i see it. My apologies :)