User talk:Flewis/Archive 5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Meon

Hang on, FLewis. I don't think what you've done is correct. The page history for CLSM is now incorrect. If you want to delete the article, you should put that up for deletion on AfD as well. Creating a disambig over the current article isn't right. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what originally happened. Sabisteb (talk · contribs) attempted to create a disambiguation page [1], and then cut/pasted the original article here [2]. I was originally confused, and the subsequent mess ensued. I realized what I had done wrong once Sabisteb alerted me to what originally he was trying to do: (Talk:Colin Meon, [3][4]). I decided to leave the AFD intact, as a deletion nom for the original article --Flewis^(talk) 10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

celtictalk

what not good enough ? wtf are you talking about lets see you make one which better describes celtictalk then —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticTalk (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't satisfy wikipedia notability inclusion guidelines. I've left a note on your talk-page with a link to the article's afd entry (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtictalk). You can leave a comment there, on whether or not you believe the article should be deleted --Flewis^(talk) 10:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD tags

I noticed your comment on the RfA. I'd like to gain a solid knowledge of the policy for the future and therefore I think knowing what I did incorrectly would be of great utility to me. Thanks. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Over here [5], you tagged the article on notability issues. Even though there were no external links/sources, simply reading the content is usually the best way to determine whether or not notability is present. The 'Minister of Fisheries And Agriculture' for the Maldives automatically meets this criteria due to his position. Just because it's a stub, doesn't automatically warrant speedy tagging (when in doubt, send to AFD).
Over here you speedied a redirect as patent nonsense [6]. Generally, you would tag an article with the {db-nonsense} tag if it contains an incoherent jumble of letters such as: sdlghnowarhtbkj53eb6g9347q6yg3kntboivghb497tnh980grbn - tagging a redirect as "nonsense" on the other hand, is ludicrous.
Over here [7] you tagged the article as spam. Don't even touch the {db-spam} unless the article is a clear solicitation for a business, or are PR piece designed to promote a company or individual.

I understand that you probably love speedy tagging as much as I do - but in the future, only tag for speedy deletion if you are certain the article article deserves immediate deletion (i.e. complete crap). Don't hesitate to send an article to AFD if you're unsure. Consensus is the best way to determine deletion in tricky situations. --Flewis^(talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I had already knew of my mistake in two of those three you noted above. In fact I removed the tag on the re-direct immediately after the fact, but I have set out to thoroughly review the guidelines before I attempt to patrol new pages again. I will keep your advice in mind and thus will be more likely to AfD when in doubt. Thanks for taking the time to bring these to my attention and offer some helpful commentary. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FLC

I will try to take a look at it in the next few days - thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Third-level warning?

What's with giving me a third-level warning for The Vulgar Bulgars? I mistakenly created it with text meant for another article, then saw my error and immediately blanked it again, and you give me a third-level warning? I thought we were supposed to assume good faith here, and start with 1st-level warnings? Oscroft (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The message I left you was a speedy-deletion notification, not a warning. Generally, newly creates articles with no text are speedied under the {{db-a1}} rationale. I tagged the article under the {{db-g2}} rationale, as a test page, because with a single "under-construction" tag and absolutely no text, that exactly what the article was.--Flewis^(talk) 10:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a test, it was an error - as I explained in the edit history comments (and the "under-construction" tag was nothing to do with me, btw). But I've misunderstood the nature of the speedy-deletion notification and I apologise for that - it looks just like the third-level warnings that are used by Twinkle. Anyway, I have contents almost ready and will insert them shortly - I really don't mind whether you want to wait for it or delete the blank article first. Oscroft (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fox News

I made a couple of edits

1. Intro information shouldn't have the editorial of the controversy, especially if it's not sourced. 2. I added the Strategy Room update. 3. The McClellan "controversy" is not a controversy. Read the entry and it says so itself.

All these suggestions have been discussed in the Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining yourself. For the time being, I've reverted my edits, though I would like to see more of a consensus develop on the article's talk page. Also remember to leave your messages on a user's talk page, rather than on their user page.[8] --Flewis^(talk) 13:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But this case is fairly clear. There's an editorial commentary in the introduction and it's not even sourced. It belongs somewhere in the "controversy" section. That's fairly standard for all the other stations and if there needs to be a "consensus" and their are biased people pushing for the editorial in the introduction than we're not going to get anywhere. 68.175.66.94 (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable sources to back up your assertions, they are normally reverted as "original research". The entire encyclopedia is driven by user-generated-content, and hence, the majority, via consensus choose what stays and what goes. If you add inline citations to the paragraph(s) in question, it will have a higher chance of remaining intact. Bias is subjective and based upon one's matter of opinion - the only way this issue can be sorted, will be via consensus, with everyone's viewpoint taken into account. --Flewis^(talk) 13:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's the problem, the sentence they have added has NO citation or source. 68.175.66.94 (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User page blurb

Fancy! But... editing since '09, huh? That takes talent. :) - chicgeek ^talk 13:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, guess I have a bit of a rendering problem. Back in my day though, rendering problems were a "thing of the past". Cheers for paying attention to detail though - I was wondering when somebody would consider taking up my challenge. ;) --Flewis^(talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You... confuse me. :) Unless of course, you're living life as TH White's Merlin does... - chicgeek ^talk 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Brodie's Little Shits

Guess what pal; I was a member of that program and I can assure you that they also went by the name "Brodie's Little Brats".

How about you only make changes when you know what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyPon (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ceide fields entry

Not quite sure why you believe the link is not allowed (I assumed that it was ok because of other link for photography) I'm new to this. ErinG7 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

All external links within Wikipedia should be reliable, so that the prospective reader can ascertain the veracity of the statements in question. The link you added [9], contains no information on Céide Fields, and it contains no photographs either - yet. So at the moment, such a link would be considered unreliable, because it doesn't enhance the article or add information.

If you need any more help with this issue, (i.e. how to include proper external links) don't hesitate to leave me a message. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Flewis, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community. I would also like to thank my nominator Realist2 and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel (talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ponty Pirate

Hello, Please could you delete the talk page for user [Ponty Pirate] I am Ponty Pirate and I am on a WIKIBREAK so cannot log in. My user page has been deleted but I would like my talk page deleted for privacy reasons. I would be very grateful if you could do this for me. Thanks, 78.145.174.100 (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied --Flewis^(talk) 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Casey Scorpions Best and Fairest United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal (Army) Resource Description Framework Gale Cincotta Christopher Dodd Michael Hayden Irish American List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Political endorsement List of U.S. state fish Keynote List of U.S. state dances James M. Gavin List of schools in Victoria Marconi Stallions Ballarat Football League

Cleanup Sam Brownback Black conservatism Rahm Emanuel Merge Presidential directive List of U.S. state insects National Security Directive Add Sources Johnny Isakson Olympia Snowe Pan-Blue Coalition Wikify Melbourne Knights Trethomas James Rassmann Expand Russian presidential election, 2008 2008 Asian Beach Games David Vitter

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Help: Bobo44

Example image caption

How do i add a pic on a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo44 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bobo, to add a pic to an article, use the following code:

[[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|right|Example image caption]] - which gives you:

For more info see WP:IMAGE. Hope this helps --Flewis^(talk) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Flewis, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Sikh Extremism

Hi, Since you had some input into the highly contentious Sikh Extremism article, I think you should read this in depth analysis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sikh_extremism#Wikipedia_being_used_as_a_propaganda_platform. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis. Thank you for your input into this article. One of the links you added...

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1734 (British Sikh extremists exposed) has again been hijacked, but I have re-included it, there was, as you know a concerted effort by some to rubbish the several references including The Times, The BBC, The CBC and have the article deleted, its decision not to be deleted is a victory for freedom of information and freedom of speech. Is there some way to police the article against the backdrop of fundamentalism? The editors, Roadahead, Singh6 and Sikh-history all voted for its deletion, and still continue to persist in its deletion, yet several admins including yourself voiced the opinion in keeping the article. Thank you. Satanoid (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, there has bbeen no consensus reached on the deletion of the artticle, so no vote to keep it has been kept. I am currently undertaking a review of every piece of so called refrence used in this article. Wikipedia is not the sole proviso of one person and should not be used as a tool to propagate political agendas. This article clearly is politically motivated and it is only a matter of time before it is exposed as such. Pickled politics is not a credible source. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see vandalism on Dabinderjit Singh by Sikh-history Satanoid (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Satanoid any legitimate questioning of his "sources" is vandalimsm. I have stated reasoning behind deleting these unreliable sources. The oneness is on the author to prove they are credible. They clearly are not.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, I just wanted to point out the tidal wave of vandalism/propaganda by Roadahead, I have noted his wish to have the article to be deleted and as you know, you, myself and others especially admins wished to keep the article. Unfortunately some of the editors who wanted the article deleted have resorted to heavy vandalism. If he cannot accept the article's existence on Wikipedia can he be blocked. He has resorted to question the validity of references http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sikh.htm

I would also re-iterate that both terrorist groups in the above link are banned under EU and US anti-terror legislation. Thank you. Satanoid (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ppl know my password

hi people at skool know my password and in english they keep changing things so i am busy trying to get it changed so at home tonite iwill change it sorry for any inconveiences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlf1411 (talk • contribs)

No problem. You can change your password immediately if you want by going to Special:Preferences. --Flewis^(talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Quick question - Adminship

If you scroll through my archives you will see that I have turned down adminship offers in the past. I'm just not interested at the moment :) Gary King (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Sorry to disturb you on your vacation but I have a question about content publication! I got an alert about Speedy deletion of the content I published! (called Call in Europe) BUT this content is not an advertismet! it's just a short history of a company, that is all. Let's say a page of a company..There are a lot of pages like this on wiki, for ex: Telestial, SFR, Avaya and hundreds of others)Caould you please explane why this content is going to be deleted? RoundCube1 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your article was speedied under the A7 rationale, which basically means that it doesn't satisfy wikipedia's article inclusion guidelines. The content you wrote up isn't bad, however wikipedia has to draw the line between subjects that warrant an encyclopedic entry, and articles that don't. According to WP:ORG - An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Of course, if your article can fulfill the necessary criteria, then the speedy tag would be removed. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. --Flewis^(talk) 12:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks!one more qiestion

Thanks a lot for your quick answer! can you please help me again and explane what could I do next?How can i prove that my article can fulfill the necessary criteria? Thanks a lot! RoundCube1 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Find external references that mention the company (reviews, newspaper mentions - nothing trivial though), and add them as citations to the article. Include as many third party reliable sources as you can, and hopefully an admin will come around and either approve the article, or recommend an AFD. --Flewis^(talk) 13:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

About Jose Luis Sierra's article, reverted

I wish I just could flame you, but I can't really understand why did you revert it, I just removed content in order to put deeper info, I can't find that vandalizing, might be not neutral content, but it isn't incorrect... if you understand spanish I can get the references and all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.64.21 (talk • contribs)

I reverted it, because you removed the inter-wiki links [10]. Please be more careful next time. --Flewis^(talk) 06:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Combatting Vandalism

I just wanted to say that you've reverted most of the edits I try to revert just before I actually do so. Nice efficieny. :) Vltava 68 (contribs) 06:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to help --Flewis^(talk) 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Richmond County, Georgia

Hi Flewis,

The edit I made was not in error, though I admit I was a bit careless not to cite it. I've used Wikipedia many times before (though I am no longer signing in under my user name) so I know the drill and don't introduce bad info. I have re-done my edit (which also included removing some vandalism that your reversion put back in) and added a citation. 68.230.170.64 (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I come across large amounts of vandalism, and without a source, I have no way to distinguish between vandalism/legit edits. Please cite and provide a more explanatory edit summary in the future. --Flewis^(talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

links for zhuhai, zhongshan and dongguan

Hello there, I have added some useful links for these cities in the Pearl River Delta for 2 websites that brings a lot of information to the English speaking community living there. I am not sure why you have decided to remove them while other links in these sections are similar. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta Solutions (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide me a link to the article?--Flewis^(talk) 09:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well for example, I have added www.deltabrides.com and www.deltaexpats.com on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuhai These 2 sites are as important as zhuhai.expat9.com and www.zhuhainights.com which are currently listed. So I don't understand the logic between which sites are allowed and which sites are not allowed. Thank you for enlightening me. (Delta Solutions (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC))

Firstly, I haven't edited Zhuhai, so you might have the wrong person. Otherwise, the websites that you listed do not comply with Wikipedia's "reliable sources guideline", which requires verifiable third-party sources that contain encyclopedic information. All I see are fansites, blogs and social networking - three websites that present no direct relevance to the city of Zhuhai. --Flewis^(talk) 11:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family edit

Hi there, you recently reverted my edit on the above mentioned page on the grounds that it was supposedly biased or some such reason. My edit consisted of publicly acknowledged fact, and while it did not list each fact, it was a general overview of the organization's overall direction, which again is not opinion, but verifiable fact. I listed it in order to provide an concise, UNBIASED informative page on the organization, whereas previously it was extremely biased to the point of effectively having been written by the organization's own PR department. Since you so definitively pronounced your judgment of my edit, I will now have to instead post each and every subversive and instance of publicly recorded malfeasance that Focus on the Family has carried out, in order to provide an unbiased and objective factual summary of their actions and objectives. If however you would like to discuss the merits of my edit and how it might be potentially modified so as to be more mutually acceptable, I would be more than willing to have such a discussion. Thank you for your watchful interjection.

76.114.21.87 (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Without reliable sources or citations, such edits [11] are on face-value 'NPOV' violations. Could you please find a reference to support the assertions, and then we could consider re-instating the extra content. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Username

Alright - Basically this is simply a handle I've used for years (~since the year 2000) on IRC, various mmorps, forums, and so forth.

It has no connection with any commercial business/service and no claims with any auditory or visual entity (in other words, its basically just the one I've used for years, without ever promoting anything).

I have no intention of claiming any connection and/or rating on any entries that I could contemplate would be unduly influenced by the choice of nick here. Acoustic visions (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)A_V

I notified you, following Iceflow's report to WP:UAA on the basis of this link. So long as you don't display a clear conflict of interest with that organization, everything should be fine. --Flewis^(talk) 12:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, first time I've ever seen that website... So it should be alright (I have no idea how I could even guess what the "interests" a furniture store in Georgia would be...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoustic visions (talk • contribs)

Bobo44: New Article Planning

I am planning on creating an article on the violin maker L.M. Nute. I have found a book on him and would like to create the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo44 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Leuluai

Hi. An anon had updated the stats for the Thomas Leuluai and then you reversed them? What I found strange about this was that they had even used a reference for there update and so were helping to fix some errors. Just checking to see if there was any other reason to be suspicious of there edits. Cheers, Mattlore (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That was indeed a mistake on my behalf. Thanks for noticing and reverting my erroneous edits. I've removed the accidental warning from the ip's talk page, and replaced it with a welcome. Thanks once again, --Flewis^(talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 29 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2008 Thai political crisis, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 15:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Fiction

I have seen the Fantastic Fiction Author Page linked in many dozens of author pages here at Wikipedia.

It is a reference site, not a promotional site

I learned about the CO.UK site from people HERE in the first place, and it was suggested to me to add it where one exists, again, because it is a reference site and provides good information particularly when UK releases vary from US releases.

Can you please explain why you have a problem with adding the site for this particular author? 71.231.98.192 (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Noted. I just found it suspicious that you added the site multiple times to various articles [12][13][14][15]. Feel free to revert my edits. --Flewis^(talk) 10:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No hidden agenda. I've had some Official-type Wikipedia folks point out the site to me and suggest that if I have the time, they'd appreciate it if I would add that link where one exists. It is a very good source of information and I was told that a number of author pages obtained their list of novels from that site in the first place. So, I'm just trying to follow-through.

Sort of like when I've been told that adding an Infobox with a computed age is preferred by some Wikipedia editors and again, it has been suggested that if I have the time, I should try to do that as well.

Simply trying to be helpful and follow some of the suggestions I've been given. I understand not all Wikipedia personnel share the same preferences, but I'm trying to navigate the waters and contribute where I can. Hope that is ok. 71.231.98.192 (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I recommend that you create an account sometime in the near future, as ip/anon editors are generally viewed with more suspicion than established editors (That happens to be one of wiki's unfortunate moot points, as ironically the anon editors write up the majority of the content). --Flewis^(talk) 12:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

editor

I added a link of http://schoolofeducators.com you removed it. please do visit the site and decide why you did that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.73.153 (talk • contribs)

I've checked the about page - the website isn't run by any official organization. Unless I'm mistaken, the website cannot be used in wikipedia as an external link, because it's not considered a reliable source. If you think otherwise, I would be happy to discuss this issue with you. --Flewis^(talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixer edit

Sorry, how is this vandalism? Michael Clayton is an Academy Award Winning film depinting exactly what a legal fixer does in real life. Fixer is even on the Michael Clayton page (not put there by me).81.132.69.220 (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Michael Clayton to that particular list is both redundant and irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - if we were to add every single actor/film that had even a slight connection to the term "Fixer", then the article would become useless. See Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#What_not_to_include --Flewis^(talk) 13:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well User:Ashbey agreed with me a put it back on.81.132.69.220 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he changed his mind [16] --Flewis^(talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true - he could just not be logged on any more. User_talk:Ashbey#Fixer__edit. You were the one to change HIS edit back. 81.132.69.220 (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is irrefutable. --Flewis^(talk) 14:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I think that you should read this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people. I also wrote an explanation for my redirect. Why are you still reverting? Shmayo (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, consensus overrides opinion. I suggest that you AFD this article if you have a problem with it. Impulsively redirecting the article without direct prior discussions is not the way to go. --Flewis^(talk) 14:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It has already in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people, the result was a delete. Shmayo (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Syriac people and Assyrian people are two slightly different articles - in fact Syriac people has more content than the other article. I'm not an expert on this issue, however I've placed {{merge}} tags [17][18] on both articles, so that the community will be able to decide their fate. --Flewis^(talk) 14:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrian people-article contains information of all the three groups - Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans, which Syriac people don't. Just see the articles. And Syriac people is full of POV. Renaming the article from Aramean-Syriac people to Syriac people just made it worse. Shmayo (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry

I'm sorry about that. My little brother typed that and then sent it. I'm so sorry to cause you any troubles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.209.31 (talk • contribs)

Roberto Bolano page

I don't understand how my edits can be construed as unconstructive. Perhaps you'd like to look a little more carefully at what you've just undone? I've added proper references to the article, which previously had none, have rephrased material that had been brazenly plagiarized from other web sites, and have improved the clarity of expression. Macphysto (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I've reverted my edit - the reason for my error, is due to the fact that you failed to use an edit summary, and such an edit [19] prima-facie looked suspicious. Please try to use an edit summary in the future, even if just a brief explanation - because otherwise RC patrollers such as myself, have a difficult time distinguishing between vandalism and legit edits. --Flewis^(talk) 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Understood.Macphysto (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)