Bob Ross edits What we have here is a failure to communicate You stated that certain details pertaining to Bob Ross life were not pertinent to the article Specifically details about his wives This information isn t trivial content Details about lots of notable individuals nonnotable spouses permeates Wikipeda unrelentingly Properly sourced information about significant events in people s lives such as marriage divorce births deaths of loved ones is not the same as saying Bob Ross like cheese even if one were to find a source for that statement Your deletion of this isnormation does in fact fly in the face of well established community driven consensus Examine any biographical article and you will find lots of information presumably properly sourced that you as an apparent deletionist might find strictly banal and useless It should be noted that the details about his wives was very short noting only their names obviously their last names were Ross and unless their maiden names were in a source one could not publish it and the durations of their marriages Such a short sourced statement is surely not worth pursuing like this Yuor edits were reverted because you did not provide a valid reason for soing so As per the widely held and practiced policy of including any properly sourced information in biographical articles mentioned above you need to discuss first changes which go against the consensus There s always the possibility that you might provide convincing arguments and even influence consensus driven policies but definitely not in this case The users who addressed your actions are well seasoned and are familiar with the consensus to the point of being able to enforce it on matters presicely like this without needing to query the community For you to be able to make the changes you made as I said you must discuss it first Making changes that violate policy can easily be construed as vandalism it suggests that you either didn t read or care to abide by the community standards but that is incorrect The policy of vandalism states in part Any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even if misguided or ill considered is not vandalism Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism For example adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism it s just not helpful and should be removed or restated It appears to me that you indended to be helpful as a deletionist but it flew in the face of established community consensus and policy I will remind those editors who made those comments to you about vandalism the specific of policy but the bottom line is do not remove properly sourced information from Wikipedia without prior discussion This is really not a matter of needing to arbitrate because this is a matter of content dispute which whould be discussed on appropriate talk pages talk