Thread:Paperkite/@comment-1738746-20151107113233/@comment-1738746-20151108053649

The information you were removing is a context thing- to leave what you suggested only reports half of the story. I realise that a lot more dragons apart from just the Holly get mentioned (p.s. it's more than just a "relation"- the Hollies are directly mentioned through the point), but you can't give readers just half the story with that. I'm currently overhauling dragon articles and you'll see that same trivia will be added to all the dragons' pages too. It still talks about the Holly just fine, and is perfectly relevant, it just also happens to mention other dragons as well because that was the nature of the event/story. Much like the Howler Drake has information about the Neotropical (technically speaking), because the information relates to both of them.

I made mention of the remark because it came across to me that any constructive feedback that was being left when fixing the edits were being disregarded instead of being used to help improve your editing. I'm not telling you to back off Paperkite, I never have and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I give advice to help improve your editing style because I want to see users like yourself grow and learn. Many many times though I have highlighted (across many articles) the information removal aspect of your editing style. Instead of doing the same thing and hoping it is "acceptable" as you put in your edit summary, why not look at how others edit or what corrections were made so you can see what needs improvement?