"

 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 "