Regarding this [1]. No, other than a standard cursory look, which on this occasion highlighted no obvious edit warring, I will not go picking through others' edit histories. I couldn't care less about any grudge you have with 217... or anyone else. My point was and is this; your edit summary 'no reason given for edit' was extremely poor and irrelevant. How ironic the you use a crap edit summary to complain about the lack of someone else's edit summary. If your going to undo and a seemingly normal edit, like [2], explain yourself in the edit summary or talk page - it's what they're there for - and it may save others having to question your actions. Mannafredo (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ilaiyaraaja article. You reverted at the same time as cluebot, resulting in you removing the infobox of the article, here. Consider looking at the page after reverting in the future. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The article on Roy Eugene Davis that you nominated for an WP:RfD was restored by Rich Farmbrough. Since the article exists now, the ongoing RFD seems to be moot. I'm going to close the discussion so I'd suggest, if you think the article should be deleted, that you take this to Articles for Deletion. —mako๛ 01:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Roy Eugene Davis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Eugene Davis. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Potentially, articles are always in progress. The "Nostalgia, Sexuality and Politics" section has been unchanged since May, and it reads very badly. When you get around to filling this section with relevant text, I look forward to reading it - sounds interesting. Until then I am reverting to my edit once again - it is easier on the eye and the brain. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I agree that in the Times article the commentators said they were disappotined. However, they are family & friends of the decessed, reacting in the context of a refusal to support their campaign for a memorial. So that article, while useful, doesn't really set Stoddart in context well.
He is a neo-classicist, specifically rejecting modern ideas of art. In this case, he said a rugby commentator per se doesn't really deserve a statue. In the quotations from him there, he did not mention McLaren by name, though the quotations set against him implied that Stoddart had slighted McLaren's character. I posted up some interesting links about Stoddart on the talk page of his article. I think they set out his basic approach quite well, and that that is really the most notable thing about his art. Are you interested in working on this bio a bit? The article should be longer for a quite well known artist.--Ktlynch (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, and the ones immediately before and after it...
Hi, I think the BLP point is covered because these claims are referenced, even if the references are no longer available online. You can still get old Business Day articles from a library, for example. (In case you're interested, most of this section was written by User:Zayd who is almost certainly Zayd Ayob, the son of Ismail Ayob.) Zaian (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Belovedfreak. I note you seem not completely happy with the bisexual refs in this article. I think things are even worse than that. The Diva interview is not even with KH, it's with her co-star, and although it says she's bisexual, it does not actually quote her as saying that, and may well be their interpretation of previous mis-quotes. If they have the Diva bit wrong, it makes you wonder how wrong they may have the Radio Times bit. This interview, going by the date of it, is probably the one that is being referred to, and although this may be an edited version of the interveiw, it makes no mention of these things. However, she does say things about it in this interview (fourth paragraph below the red car) that somewhat contradict what were being told. It all seems a bit of a mess, and unfortunately I can't afford the time or effort to sort it out right now. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
This is like saying there should be no mention of New Year in the Auld Lang Syne article, because the article is not about New Year. The anniversary frame is wholly to do with the 1985 final. It has much more relevance here than it has in the 2010 World Snooker Championship article. You'll be glad to know that I can find nothing on the 20th Anniversary, so will not be adding it to the article. Mannafredo (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI This has worked differently from this. Neither is about people. Was this a Woohookitty decision or a WikiCleaner ‘decision’? Just curious. Mannafredo (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Concerning this...
Your edit here was not valid. The existing cite did not support the text. You also removed an NPOV tag without discussion. Your next edit does not support the text either. The cite you provide does not say people adopt it because they prefer to be political correct. It supports other people saying that is what it is. The original text of the SBC resolution is already in the article --JimWae (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly they've changed the listings since I originally researched those articles to make them Oscar-style, meaning the 1998 awards were given in 1999, etc? Angmering (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed you retract the deletion proposal. Please take a look. -DePiep (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have now twice nominated User:Ignasipuig for deletion under CSD U2, i.e. as a userpage of a non-existent user. However, the user account does exist, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/Ignasipuig. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I undid your revision to the EGOT page, but my browser had a fluke and the changes were saved before I was finished typing the stuff in the edit summary thing, so I just wanted to explain why I undid your revision. Basically the grey lines are there to divide between different sections of winner. The top charts have it to separate Barbara Streisand and Liza Minnelli from the other 10 because those two have not won all of the awards in competitive categories. The bottom table uses a similar format. Schnapps17 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No I didn't intend to overlook the mistakes I am glad you spotted them, and corrected. I did write that in a bit of haste, while under considerable stress. Definitely thanks. My76Strat (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom. proposal regarding the scope of the list. -- Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Your edit to Mail Online has been reverted as it is unconstructive. The statement makes no sense and has no proof. Your "source" is simply another WP article which proves absolutely nothing. You cannot use a POV statement by another editor as a reliable source. This is not how an encylopedic site works. Please do not repost as your edit may be classed as vandalism. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mannafredo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Mannafredo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)