The user who posted this bogus warning has been blocked. Thereisaplace's edits were not vandalism. Fram20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be any factual basis for the comments posted by the above user. Simply deciding that one party is vandalizing and the other is adding legitimate information isn't very adminly, especially when the party being labeled vandals is one that the admin has had previous conflicts with. See WP:POINT, among others. 71.30.249.5304:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When at least one edit is clearly vandalism, and there is not a shred of evidence for the other edits (and as for the mascot, there is clear counter-evidence), then it is hardly a case of simply deciding on a whim, but a logical conclusion that users who have been known to often vandalize Wikipedia articles are doing it again. Empty statements that the edits I labeled vandalism are in fact "correct information"[1] are easy to make (just like fake websites to support this, as these vandals have been known to do), but please provide good evidence that supports your statements before continuing this pointless discussion. And it would be bettre if you don't use the habit of those vandals of using incorrect and fairly uncivil edit summaries, it is not helping you at all. Fram10:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I'm not concerned about The Raven since it's clear that he repeatedly vandalized, however it appears to me that Catbag is acting in good faith and is being targeted for some reason because he edited an article about a city in Belgium at some point. He has no prior record of vandalism; indeed all of his edits (EHS edits nonwithstanding) appear useful and in good faith. 75.89.19.23622:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not vandalize Wikipedia; revisions such as the one you made to Eastside High School (Gainesville, FL) are considered vandalism. Use of the Sandbox is suggested if you wish to experiment with editing features. The Raven 19:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)