| Revision as of 02:04, 14 November 2009 editOrderinchaos (talk | contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →WTF: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:05, 14 November 2009 edit undoOrderinchaos (talk | contribs)Administrators70,076 edits →WTF: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ==WTF== | ==WTF== | ||
| 9 CDP candidates in a total pool of |
9 CDP candidates in a total pool of 22 in the Bradfield by-election. Scary to think the amount that's going to cost in non-refundable nomination fees alone. ] 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:05, 14 November 2009
| Archives |
|---|
(feel free to add/edit your own comments) |
Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. I try to remember to respond on your talk page, and I mostly do, but if you leave a message here and for some reason i'm not replying, perhaps check back here from time to time :-)
My edit count. Backup if not working. 1,757 watchlist articles and counting.
There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal...
Lindsay Tanner references
I have to say I found your edit summary here a little rude. Moving the tag to a single section is incorrect, the majority of the article is unsourced and the tag applies to more than a single section. Given that most of the article could have been deleted under BLP policy, I hardly think adding the tag to attract people to improve the article is "pointless". From WP:TC: "In obscure articles with few editors, the templates can serve to attract attention to problems that have not been addressed. In articles that are heavily edited or discussed, templates can be used to indicate ongoing problems or disputes in order to attract outside help and caution readers that the content may be shortly subject to change. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article." Jezebel'sPonyo 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's been brought to my attention on my talk page that my comments above may have come off other than I had intended. If so, I apologize. I really was just trying to get more sources added to the article so that the multiple inline citation tags could be removed, improving readability. I always try to add references to articles as opposed to simply tagging them (as I had done here earlier in the day), but was on a time crunch. All's well that ends well though, as additional sources have been added. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo 04:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Gordon Moyes
Timeshift9, there's no rational reason for the changes you have made. All you have done is remove factual information so I can only assume the intent is a personally motivated one / vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curleighandmowe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
.........................................................
Re the changes on Nathan Rees site. Information put is fully accurate, provable and citable. Please advise protocol difficulties. Wish right of free speech but realise obligation to Wiki is absolute accuracy. Not vandalism nor POV. Facts as printed in revertable objects. Advise ? Yours In goodwill.
WTF
9 CDP candidates in a total pool of 22 in the Bradfield by-election. ABC AEC Scary to think the amount that's going to cost in non-refundable nomination fees alone. Orderinchaos 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)