" to PNT. I look forward to seeing you around WP. ) 

 Transactional and transformational leadership 

Dear Synchronism, I would be happier if next time you research a little bit more on the notability of the articles you're proposing to delete before tagging them. Both theories are widely known among the leadership scholars, and a google or google scholar search would sufice. Also, it helps if you check the history page. There was some indication that some sort of bibliography existed before in transformational leadership, as the ""years"" were cited after the authors. In a couple of clicks, you could have discovered the bibliography that was deleted by some editor in the past. Happy edits,   

A google hit count is not the same as a corpus token count. Anyway, ghits and corpus tokens don't equate notability.  I clearly have different opinions on this subject than you, so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't conflate those differences with any complaints you have about my editting activity.  You responded to my proposed deletions sufficiently and then some. And for the record: I do look at page histories.  

User page
Thanks for the revert.  Have a gorilla 
No problem,   

Budgie (TV series)
Are you a lawyer by any chance? Having tidied up some appallingly written text in the article Budgie (TV series) it seems you have reverted it back on some minor technicality. If you aren't a lawyer I suggest you contact the Department of Justice as they are looking for people just like you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.68.13   

You removed referenced text from the article without explanation.  I'll happily restore your reversions partially, but do not remove substantial text without explanation.  

 Parapsychology is a pseudoscience and you guys are promoting it as science. 

Cluebot reverted my edits removing unreliable sourcing on that article. Now, when I try to point out it is a pseudoscience, you revert my edits again. All you are are a bunch of frauds who want to promote ignorance and superstition. Why else would you revert edits which call a pseudoscience for what it is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) < ! Template:Unsigned > 
Having not ever read the article I wouldn't know if it's promoting anything. I reverted your edits because you removed the bulk of the articles text and replaced it with a comment that would have been more useful on the article's talk page. As far as the 'bots action's are concerned, I support it. The references obviously don't by themselves make anything true, but it least we know where it's coming from. You could always just undo the bot's edits...  "