Before becoming angry at me for reverting your legit edit, please realize that Recent-Page Patrollers occasionally make mistakes, as Wikipedia is often vandalized, and sometimes we miswarn a user. If you believe I have reverted your edit in error, please calmly leave me a message below, and I will look into your edit. Thank you for your patience.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
