User talk:Setwisohi

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Setwisohi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dfrg_msc 09:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing tackle

Hi Setwisohi. Welcome to wikipedia. I agree with your recent edit of fishing tackle when you tucked the untidy etymology away at the bottom. However, I do not agree with you removing that image merely because (for some strange reason which I don't understand either!) it was not resizing correctly. That is a hard won image that visually makes the salient point that any gear used for fishing, including tangled nets and rusty gear on a fishing boat, is also "tackle". However don't let that cramp your style, and keep trucking on! --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a shame to have lost it. Sorry. If you can get it back and get it to fit, that would be a lot better! Setwisohi (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pinched it from Chris huh. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bite alarms

There is a problem with changing bite detectors on the templates to bite alarms. A bite alarm is an audible device, as in fire alarm, whereas a bite "detector" is a more general term, and could refer to visual or kinaesthetic devices. It is true that the template links to an article called "bite alarms" when strictly it should have linked to an article called bite detectors. But there is, so far, no article called "bite detectors".

To fix this, the templates need to be restored to where they were, and the name of the article called Bite alarm needs to be changed to "Bite detector". Then the article itself needs to be enlarged to reflect its enlarged status.

I have put these templates now on over 800 fishing articles and I am very aware of these issues (which crop up everywhere). Usually there is no simple fix to be made by just renaming items on the templates. The problems are structural, and can only be solved by renaming and expanding existing articles or creating new ones. I am doing just that bit by bit, but I can't do it all at once. Simple renames usually don't fix the problem. If you would like to help by expanding or creating the relevant articles, then you are more than welcome. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, "bite alarm" is better. A google search shows "bite detector" is hardly used at all. So you could leave the templates as they are (which is nice, since "bite alarm" is visually better on the template than "bite detector"). But the article called "Bite alarm" needs to be expanded so it is not confined to just audible devices. Please do that if you would want to - if you don't want to I'll do it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can have a go at expanding the Bite Alarm article as you suggest. The only problem I can see is that, in the UK anyway, 'bite alarm' always refers to the audible electronic device whereas 'bite detector' includes all forms of indicator; alarms, floats, tips etc... So I think something needs putting somewhere to make that distinction more apparent for UK users? Setwisohi (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good, go for it. I'm not sure your "problem" exists. "Bite alarm" gets 90,000 hits on google, and "bite alarms" gets 78,000 hits. If you look at some of the articles you find they are not confined just to auditory alarms. "Bite detector" gets a miserly 1,360 hits, and "bite detectors" gets 2,570. A google search on "bite detector"+uk returns a minuscule 182 hits, while "bite detector"+us returns 825 hits, so I don't see any evidence at all that bite detector is more preferred in Britain. But you could go back to the original scenario, and create a new article called "Bite detector", and then revert the templates to reflect that.

UEFA european championship page

see the bottom of the page Redman19 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Apiologist List

Hi Setwisohi,

I wanted to let you know that I undid the removal of all apiologists who don't have their own wikipedia page. As great as wikipedia is, and as informative as it is, wikipedia is not a complete catalog of all information. I don't think that the existence of a wikipedia entry is the ultimate measure of notability. All of the scientists that you removed are respected published authors with hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers and several books to their credit. Feel free to discuss this issue in the talk section of the apiology page. CheersAJseagull1 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid it doesn't really work like that. If those people are notable, then they should have articles created. If they are not notable, then they don't - by definiton - belong in a list of notable people. Once they have articles, they can be listed. Setwisohi (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does work like that. It is definitely important to have a line or 2 stating why the notable people are notable (especially if they don't have their own article). That way the wikipedia community can decide on a case by case basis. There is not a consensus on wikipedia to blanket remove these people. Lots of lists include people who don't have their own page. For example: List of Harvard University people, List of people from Wyoming, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJseagull1 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to sign previous commentAJseagull1 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will put some references on the page. to establish notability Cheers, AJseagull1 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See Apiology talk page. Setwisohi (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

Stop vandalizing Finland article. I don't know what your issue is with Finland, and I don't care, but diluting the article with your own idea of how things should be represented serves no purpose when the fact is that the research places Finland as the 2nd most stable country in the world. If you have an issue with the research, write a critique section to the page where the rankings are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.207.125 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth a reply this, is it? If you want to discuss something with someone, don't begin by shouting accusations at them. Setwisohi (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

It's a good job pruning external links, as they tend to accrue and slip through the net. However, please make sure you don't delete good ones as you did here.[1] Raw Vision is a very well known outsider art magazine and a good resource for readers. Likewise there are useful links on the Intuit page - and Intuit is a long established not-for-profit centre, though I guess a link to the main page or some such might be considered instead. Sites with commercial material aren't banned from EL as such, but we don't want sites that exist primarily for that purpose and where any material is commonplace and just to provide padding for ads. The EL should provide something worthwhile for the reader, which isn't able to be incorporated into the article for whatever reason (maybe length as with an interview). Ty 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, thanks for the comments. I have removed the links again for now and have invited comment on the article talk page. Setwisohi (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. It is a good approach to invite comment from a wider field. Ty 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting collage book

note: Comment placed here by User talk:MarylandArtLover - moved discussion to their talk page.

Pratice what you preach

And to you to, censorship works both ways: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United_Kingdom_Independence_Party. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, YOU may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Long live British Democracy. Screw the political class.Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In less than five days on Wikipedia this is at least the 2nd user page you have visited and shown discourtesy on. Please refrain. Setwisohi (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou for the barnstar. I will try to keep up the good work! Thanks again and happy editing! America69 (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meeli Koiva

I rescued this from immediate deletion, but I'd advise you to add more references quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion. This is especially important when the material is in a language not that many of us here speak, such as Finnish. DGG (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DGG, I think you've got the wrong person. Not my article and I don't think I added any references to it. As far as I recall I just tidied it up and removed some dead external links? Setwisohi (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you could translate in Irish Gealic the articles Martin Weinek and Kaspar Capparoni? Thank you so much!

Good evening to you and regards from Campora San Giovanni. I write you regarding the articles of a note police television series: Kommissar Rex. For better saying some principal actors of the international series. Martin Weinek and Kaspar Capparoni. Weinek is the veteran of the Austrian series, now real member of the series international, as well as excellent agricultural and theatrical entrepreneur and an experienced wine-grower. Capparoni is the new entry of the series, but he has already worked and he works for international productions and with famous directors, I quote among everybody: Dario Argento. I think that the series will arrive within the winter 2008 thanks also to Rai International, that will be transmitted in 150 countries and in more than 60 languages, among which the Irish Gaelic. Naturally if you will help me in this, me ricamberò really the favor translating a biography or a geographical article in Italian and Sicilian. In fact on the Italian edition they are biographer and geographer. In attends him of one certain answer of yours I thank you in advance and I greet you from Campora San Giovanni, my village native. Thanks still for the patience and the understanding.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lodewijk. I don't think my Gaelic would be up to the standard for translating whole articles. Sorry. Setwisohi (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: UKIP

Hello,I have removed the Conservatism tag in respect of your request. I only added it on as the UKIP ( United Kingdom Independence Party ) do have Economic and fiscal policies. Thank you and Merry Christmas .

From TheGreenWalker —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenwalker (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How do you?

How do you get the little pictures like those on your page?

Thank you

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

UKIP: Conservatism and Libertarianism points?

Hello, Thank you for your help recently, but I need to know more (I am new). You asked me about if I can provide 'third party reliable sources' for the tag Conservatism. I want to know is what are reliable sources? Is it newspaper articles or other links? If so, how do I attach the link to prove the idealogies of the party? Also Mr Nigel Farage said to the BBC news this after the BNP electoral pact deal for the Euro 2009 elections, He said ' We want a government that will keep out and do less in our lives and the BNP wants to control our lives ' This is proof of Libertarianism in the UKIP, how do I attach the links to it? Thank you again (TheGreenwalker (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sources have to be 3rd party and reliable; Farage would be reliable, but not 3rd party. A blog would be 3rd party (probably) but not reliable. What you need to find are sources such as political papers from universities, good reference books, a proper article in a quality newspaper, journal or magazine. And so on. Setwisohi (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May of found

Hello, me again. I do thank you for helping me recently, but I want to let you know I may have found some articles that may explain that the UKIP may have Conservatism and/or Libertarianism idealogies? (TheGreenwalker (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good. If you're not sure, post them on the talk page of the article for discussion. Setwisohi (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here are some that may be of good use: 1. http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-should-next-ukip-leader-do.html 2. http://www.ukipeast.com/localmanifesto.htm 3. http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/11/12/ukip-%E2%80%93-an-insight-into-one-of-the-fastest-growing-parties-in-the-uk/ I think 3 gives a good insight of Libertarianism for UKIP? Thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that. But unfortunately these are probably not much use. The first and third are blogs - which can't be used as sources. (See Wikipedia policy). And the second source doesn't mention the word 'Libertarian'. In any case it's not 3rd party. Sources have to be both reliable and 3rd party. Setwisohi (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, never mind, at least I tried. Thank you anyway.

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Max Magnus Norman, edits

Hey, that "double reference"--there was no double reference. What you deleted was, in one edit, the Iron Maiden text, and then the source for that text. But that Iron Maiden thing, of course it wasn't organized by Maiden or some such thing, and the article never claimed it did: it said "coinciding," and that's not a lie or even an exaggeration, as you suggested yourself in your edit summary. Also, I am not quite sure I agree with the edit you called "tidied refs"--it's not tidying up, it's the deletion of a reference to the artist's own explanation of his controversial artwork, which in the circumstances should be allowed, since it's called "obscene" in the paper, and that article does not give the context the work was created in. I'll wait for your response here, but I am very much in the mood to put both of them back, esp. the Iron Maiden thing since that's an interview with him, which provides the most in-depth coverage of all the (scant, I admit) sources. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the stuff that I've removed because it's just not encyclopaedic. The reference to Iron Maiden, for example, is just a non-starter. Norman has got nothing to do with Iron Maiden nor has he ever had - so I can't see why they are mentioned unless to try to give false credence to the article. I suggest leaving the article as it now stands so that editor's can properly appreciate what Norman has or has not done. If the article survives AfD then you can re-add whatever you feel is appropriate in order to better explain his work. Setwisohi (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that after your deletions the article stands a much slimmer chance of surviving AfD, as is borne out by the most recent contribution to the AfD discussion. Again, that the band had nothing to with organizing the event is no reason to delete mention of the event: it was an artshow, and it was written about in the paper, and it contained an interview with the artist. The non-starter here is really the suggestion of my "giving false credence to the article"--not entirely kosher, given AGF. You can't just remove the entire thing because you think it's unencyclopaedic; sure, it's regional or local, but it's still there, and it lends a shiver of notability to this guy. And that article is not about "explaining his work"--it's about there being notable work in the first place. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euromyth

In answer to the question "Who added all this BS": it was me that originally added the flags. At the time I added them, of course, they were all perfectly valid and applied to the last version by Jay-W. However you then reverted the changes which had occasioned the flags, but neglected to remove the flags that no longer applied, thus creating duplicate flags and what you term "BS". So the real answer to "Who created all this BS", the answer is really "You did!". --Boson (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Oh dear. I see. Well thanks for the explanation. I'll be more careful of intermediate edits in future! Setwisohi (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sniding

Setwisohi, my apologies. I will refrain in the future. I agree the allusion to potential bias is unfounded and added nothing to the discussion at hand re: my comment on another editor's talk page. Carolinequarrier (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Re. Talk:Robert Mihaly, please see WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL and WP:OUTING. Ty 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm already aware of all of those. Setwisohi (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euromyth

Hi, the normal way of dealing with edits you disagree with is the discussion page. Would you please explain there and consider using edit summaries in future? Thanks. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a lot of weasel word type changes - as well as some good ones - I'm trying to sort out your errors from your good work. Leave article with me and all will be well soon. Setwisohi (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I'll leave it with you. In the meanwhile, I've placed a {{POV}} template. I agree, there were some Weasel type statements, the problem is they were generally replacing assertions that were originally synthesis and original research. The alternative would have been to delete them which would have been premature. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My fault entirely - got into a strange edit mode.. (doing too many things at once). Most of your stuff is good. I am reinstating much of it. Setwisohi (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. I'll take a look when you've finished and leave any comments on the talk page. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkbride

I don't see the reasoning about your revert. Please discuss it on the Kirkbride talk page. regards [[2]] (Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have not only reverted my edit without discussion but you have hacked off the cites as well. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As you have reverted my edit without any discussion and failed to come to the talk page as requested to discuss it I have replaced my edit and I am available for discussion about this on the kirkbride talkpage [[3]] . (Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You need to calm down. I haven't replied because I haven't been on line. Pretty obvious explanation really for my lack of input. Setwisohi (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm , the fact is you reverted my edit without discussion and then left the building...(Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are not calm. As your comments here and on the Kirkbride page - and your reply just now - testify. If you'd like to talk about it, feel free to come back when you have a little more balance. Setwisohi (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Setwisohi. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 15:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took Darcy White to AfD. I've elaborated in my summary, but it looks like few of the claims being made check out. freshacconci talktalk 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've had a look and you seem to have covered it very well. Setwisohi (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June Movement

Regarding your recent edit: please observe that the June Movement's membership of EUDemocrats is valid regardless of whether the movement is in the European Parliament or not. In parliament, the June Movement was in the IND/DEM group. --Law Lord (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're quite right. Apologies. Setwisohi (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Setwisohi/Thatcher

User:Setwisohi/Thatcher, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Setwisohi/Thatcher and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Setwisohi/Thatcher during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GTD 08:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request that you nominate the page for speedy deletion under criterion U1. I have already expressed in the MfD that I believe the page should be deleted but I would just like to make this appeal. As it stands an 83 year old woman is hospitalised about to undergo surgery, surely at this time - putting politics aside - it is in particular bad taste (and could potentially reflect badly on Wikipedia) to host a statement indicating that you will celebrate her death. If you do not see deletion as an option would not a criticism of her politics suffice in the place of the current message? Others with likely more to feel aggrieved about have been able to get over their personal issues. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest9999, you have made a polite enough statement and I feel that I should answer you. Whatever your view may be of Thatcher, for me (and very many others) she is evil personified. On the subject of death, I might point out that she allowed - pushed - very many people to go to their deaths just in the interest of furthering her own political ambitions and dogma. That she is 83 and hospitalised only brings me pleasure. I make no apologies for feeling as I do about her; she is, if you will, my own Osama Bin Laden. And I would not ask others to wish him well. Or, indeed, anything but harm. Setwisohi (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored material on Libertarian page

How does the new version look to you? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that definitely looks better. Setwisohi (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independence here and there

Hello, I see you like Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Independence, but do you like English independence and Cornish independence as well?

(86.169.125.18 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. Setwisohi (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. So, would you include them on your boxes?

(86.169.125.18 (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There's no need to include English independence; if Scotland, Wales and NI were to gain independence, England would, in effect, be independent. Cornwall is a different case. It's still only an issue of minor importance and does not have the support of even a significant minority of Cornish people. (Much as is the case with Brittany in France - although there are more Bretons who want independence than Cornish folk, I believe). Setwisohi (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References or Linkspam

The links you deleted from Rugby union in Cyprus were references not "link spam". If I don't keep them in, someone will come along and delete all the material (possibly the entire article).--MacRusgail (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, Angloinfo are a notorious spamming link. Not wanted in Wikipedia. Can you find alternative sources? Setwisohi (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page and responded to it there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Belgian wine in this edit. Deleting references is WP:Vandalism, as far as I'm concerned. You're of course welcome to find another, better source if you're familiar with the subject, but definitely not to erase references. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go look up the countless entries on vandalism - specifically those under external links - before you come on here and bandy words like that around. Removing spamming links is Wikipedia policy. Setwisohi (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the source I used for the statement. If you wish to find another, fine with me, but the source is not commercial linkspam and you can not expect other editors to do work for you just because you don't seem to like a site. Or can you provide a wikilink specifying Wikipedia consensus to be that the page "Wines & Beers of Belgium" under the URL http://belgium.angloinfo.com/countries/belgium/wine.asp is not an acceptable source? If not, don't remove it again, thank you. Tomas e (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the site is commercial linkspam. You may not have added it as such - indeed I'm sure you didn't - but that doesn't change the fact that Angloinfo is an identified commercial linkspam site. So please do find another source or simply leave the material unsourced. (Not all material needs sourcing remember). In the meantime, I will again remove the site. Please do not add it again, thank you. Setwisohi (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not providing any link to support your fact, and you're not supplying any other better source. Tomas e (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am bewildered by anyone who can make a blanket statement that deleting references is vandalism, without regard to circumstances. Deleting references may or may not be vandalism, depending on why it is done. Deleting bad references is obviously not vandalism; otherwise we would have the absurd situation that anyone could insert any rubbishy reference they liked, and it would then have to stay there forever. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please support your statement about the reference I used being "bad" and "rubbish"? And please refer to WP:CIVILITY before making such claims about my edits. Setwisohi is deleting this reference with zero discussion about its or the article's content. That is vandalism, since previously sourced statements now are unsourced. Tomas e (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment carefully you will see that I did not suggest that your reference was "bad" or "rubbish". I said that, if we followed the line that all removal of references is vandalism, then anyone could put rubbishy references in, and we could not remove them. My comment was about the view that removing references is always wrong, not about the references you put in. If you read my comment carefully you will see that I did not make any claims about your edits: in fact I did not even mention them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Tomas e I think you need to go back to bascis a little. There is no need to have a discussion about deleting material from Wikipedia. Many hundreds of edits a day are people deleting external links to sites with a bad rep. Which is all that I have done. I'm not at all sure why you are so perturbed by this? Could you please clarify your concerns? Setwisohi (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion here. While the AngloInfo website is certainly not the Purple Pages, the information on the site looks to be correct and I don't see any overt advertising which would make it "spammish". It is doing what all WP:RS are intended to do and I don't see a valid reason for its removal apart from the insertion of a better reference. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In so far as this goes, that is correct. But the site, angloinfo, is a commercial linkspam site. (Or has been used as such). Which is why I have removed it. Which is perfectly normal editing practice on Wikipedia. There really is no issue here other than what User:Tomas e is arguing about. Setwisohi (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discussion somewhere about having the site be blacklisted? Cause looking at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, I don't see any mention of it. While it maybe perfectly normal editing practice to delete links and content, it is perfectly normal for editors to disagree with your actions as well. I'm still not seeing a valid reason for its removal. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, whilst MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is used for sites which have been listed as spammers, it does not list all sites which spam. Angloinfo have spammed Wikipedia several times but they are not yet listed on the blacklist. As it happens, in this particular case, I'm sure the link to Angloinfo has been added in good faith and not by an administrator of that site. But that doesn't mean it has to stay. The article in question does not need the disputed source. Setwisohi (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: UKIP

What are you talking about? 194.83.131.4 isn't me and I haven't been using my account (TheGreenwalker) recently. Just because I also believe that the Libertarian tag should be added does not mean I did it, because you made it very clear to me that there have to be 'reliable source'. In other words, I did not add that tag in. Also, the IP of 194.83.131.4 is connected to a colllege in Epsom. I live near Wimbledon and have no connections in Epsom. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A minor edit

I don't disagree with this edit, but it hardly counts as a minor edit! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. yes and no. I suppose some people are rather touchy about the term 'right-wing' and these folk might see it as a more than minor edit. For me though the term is no different to 'centre' or 'left-wing' and people don't seem to be get so hot-under-the-collar about those labels. (As an aside, I have a theory that people who are right-wing and support right-wing parties just don't like to be reminded of that fact for some reason. It's as if not having the label somehow makes the party more respectable). But, yes, I can see why you say what you do. Fair comment. Setwisohi (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

news

AfD nomination of SpinWatch

An article that you have been involved in editing, SpinWatch, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinWatch. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]