User talk:Lahgbr

Welcome, ! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions! You might like to check out our tutorial, a resource created especially for new users like yourself. You also may want to introduce yourself to the community at the new user log. I would suggest a look through our policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or at our questions forum. I hope very much you enjoy being here with us, and I wish you luck with your contributions. - Zapptastic at

Speedy deletion of Laurence Hughes
A tag has been placed on Laurence Hughes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. &mdash;  X   S   G   22:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Laurence Hughes
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Laurence Hughes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Conflict of Interest and not inherently notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. &mdash;  X   S   G   22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Peter Mandelson. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David Underdown (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ashleyvh (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not being a complete nerd I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, let alone in the Talk sections. However. I would just like belatedly to point out, if this is the 'correct' place to do so, that the edits I performed on the 'Peter Mandelson' article, although rather on the spur of the moment, were partly a form of protest at the appointment of this unelected politician to a position of power in the UK government, and also an attempt to remedy the situation in which the current article, far from being from 'a neutral point of view', is actually highly laudatory of Mandelson and presents him and his career in a severely 'air-brushed' version, completely failing to make clear the fact that he has twice been forced to resign from office after charges of corruption, that he has been appointed to government office again without any electoral support or accountability, and failing to refelct the appalling reputation he has in British politics and media for deviousness and 'spin'. In this sense the article is actually disinformation, amounting almost to political propaganda, and shows a distinct New Labour bias which makes me suspect it has been largely written by New Labour supporters, possibly at the direction of the Labour Party head office. This does not reflect well on Wikipedia and its supposed 'neutrality'. Mandelson is an active politician, and as such it is perfectly appropriate for an article in Wikipedia to report controversial and uncomplimentary media attention that he is receiving or has received and public opinion about him and his actions, provided it is made clear that that is what is being reported.

P.S. I note that the article has since been amended to give a *slightly* more realistic portrait of this vile and machiavellian politician, I am glad to say, though it still fails to reflect the public outrage at the appointment of an unelected 'peer' to government office.