User talk:Snigbrook/Archive 4

John Lesch
Good work on John Lesch. Dolive21 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Snigbrook

Category:Indian bodybuilders
Could you tell me why my addition to Category:Indian bodybuilders on the 16th of April was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlwan (talk • contribs) 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because articles shouldn't be created in category pages - to create an article you should type the name of the person in the "search" box and click on the red link to the name (and if a page already exists about a different person with the same name then a disambiguated title will be needed). — Snigbrook 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To add an article to a category you should add  to the article (and other relevant categories, such as Category:Living people) - see Categorization for more information. — Snigbrook  19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Carriageway
You proposed merging Carriageway into Road. Seems a sensible idea to me, but you seem to have neglected to list it at Proposed mergers where people will actually be able to see and act on it. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

General Tojo
FYI. Please try to report these at WP:SPI as much as possible, because you're lucky I wandered by and checked for sleepers :). -- lucasbfr  talk 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Bell (politician)
It didn't look like good faith, hence restore. Afd will do anyhow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Toxie Hall edit
I'm related to to Toxie Hall, I appreciated your contributions, you did a good edit but vandal reverted missing info and I have no intention arguing with wikidiots; uncle was police officer until 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxey_Hall&diff=284483089&oldid=284336287 reverted version was best, full name need correction, properly explained http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/Toxie_Hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxihal (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that it was reverted by a vandal, and mention of "wikidiots" makes me wonder if you are the banned user whose edits to the article have been reverted. However, I've added some of the information, using a reference already in the article as a source.   — Snigbrook  00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

well, no, i am not, but its my right to point out how you are irresponsible, takes you forever to correct things, nishkid64 did revert good things,
 * there are still missing from links given!

vandalism to user talk:Justinfr
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point...
Very clever bit of vandalism on the part of that clown. It makes sense when looking at the edit history of that first account. That's exactly what the guy did. I'll unblock the innocent accounts. Good call. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Bell (politician)
I thought I'd provided the external sources, when the page was created it was remaned to politician by someone else. Not sure I understand the reason for deletion deeby65 —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC).


 * The relevant guidelines for whether there should be an article are WP:POLITICIAN (politicians) and WP:BIO (biographies). Although you cited sources for verification, the only substantial coverage cited is from primary sources which are not enough.  You will need to provide evidence of more substantial secondary coverage.  Unless the article is improved it will probably be deleted when the deletion discussion is closed (it should stay open for another two or three days) although if it is deleted you could ask an administrator in this category for a copy. — Snigbrook  14:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it.
OK, I've change the protection level to semi-protected for one month. Hopefully, the little angels will get the message. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Brett Holman
I am a member of a prestigous Australian Football supporters group and amongst members, and the wider Australian football community, it is common knowledge that Brett Holman has indeed been dubbed Holminho. Please stop editing this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.130.213 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't what has been disputed, although it was removed because it was unsourced and possibly unencyclopedic - also it was removed by other users first - if you look at the article's history, particularly the edit summaries for this and this you will see the reasons that it has been removed. — Snigbrook 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The backwards username guy
Well, now I feel stupid, here I was thinking it was just an unusual foreign name, but that was pretty darn blatant. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is this?
How do you know Stuart Pearson (Businessman)? He likes monopoly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.28.146 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't, but your edit wsas not suitable as it violated Wikipedia's policies, including biographies of living persons, verifiability and probably, because of the way it was written, neutral point of view. If you can find a reliable source that makes this claim, and phrase it more appropriately in the article to avoid undue weight, maybe it will be acceptable. — Snigbrook  20:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

EC on Tom Avery
Sorry about that :)!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2 | Access  Denied  12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you even been to lipson?
What do you know? I bet that all you know of the place is what is already written on the wikipedia page. Most likely you have never been there and you probably never will. For a fairly long portion of my life I lived in Tumby Bay and I new peple from there. Why isn't this relavent information?? When people look something up they have a right to know. There are drugs in Lipson in the ceilings. There are probably drugs all over the place in ever town in certain roofs. People have a right to know items of interest and you are preventing them from doing that. I find that despicable. But, maybe I am wrong. In life we have to make everything seem much better than it actually is. We wouldn't want people reading about drugs of anything bad like that, would we? 123.2.110.26 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite any sources, and I couldn't find anything on Google News, so it appeared to be original research or opinion. If it is known for this, you should be able to find reliable sources (for example, newspapers) where it is mentioned. — Snigbrook  13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because it hasn't been published anywhere, it isn't true. So according to you, I can't speak English because it hasn't been published anywhere. Or, it isn't published anywhere that you are a real person, so therefore you don't exist. That means I'm talking to a computer - you and I both know this to not be true, but it isn't published anywhere so we can't actually say it. Basically, you are saying that anything that is not published somewhere is not true. There are many things that aren't published anywhere that are true. If nothing got written about that wasn't already written about, the world would get nowhere. The greats like Newton, Gallileo, Aristotle, wouldn't have been able to write any of the truly great things that they have. Basically you are preventing people from learning things, so you are as good as the Nazis who burned books that the Jews had written.123.2.110.26 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research (see No original research). Journalism is suitable for newspapers, and original research can be published in books or peer-reviewed journals, but it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia unless a reliable source can be cited. — Snigbrook  19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revert
Hey, thanks for reverting that edit to my talk page :). What it is to be loved eh? ;). Keep up your good work - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the revert on my talk page as well! Leave  Sleaves  13:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Article's quality
O si yo! (hi) Please do not revert to a lesser quality article. thanks. Tsagali (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pines City Colleges
I noticed that you reverted to an earlier version of this page, stating that the information that was there was a copyvio. I googled on three phrases in the previous page and while all of them came up on google, it appeared that they were general google duplication sites, rather than ones for the university. Could you please let me know what this is a copyvio from? Naraht (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it was a copy of http://www.baguioboard.com/pines-city-colleges.php - no evidence that it was originally from Wikipedia, although it's possible that it was from a deleted version of the article. There was an older version that had more information but the formatting of the text suggests that was also copied from somewhere. snigbrook (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

St Bedes
The exam results can be interpreted by anyone with a bit of common sense. First column is the number of candidates, then move along for the number of A*s, As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Es, Fs, Gs, Us. Then number of A*s - C (good passes) and A*s - G (passes). Do the maths it all works out. The printed versions also show this. Everyone in the school knows they were removed for poor performace. This is illustrated by the fact they had to make an RE teacher redundant so they could keep on the ex head of RE after she was sacked. This was on the old-style school website, but the job adverts archive has since been removed. IF you are desperate, you could look on the TES site. The head of ICT was again removed and banned from teaching ICT, hence the appointment of the deputy headteacher as the interim head of department. Again, such information was availiable on the old school site. The details surrounding her absence (alcohol dependance, inability to teach or prepare lessons due to intoxication) were confirmed by the deputy headteacher as a response to the 18 students who submitted formal complaints about her, as, after 61 lessons, no work of the syllabus had been covered. Again, the information is no longer on the site but I'm sure if you contact the school they will provide it for you. In the meantime, the sources provided are aqequate for proving that ICT and RE are two of the worst departments in the school, and that in response to this, and comments from OFSTED, the members of staff in question had to be removed and replaced for the school to function effectievly, as is shown in the way they say they have taken steps to improve. I hope this clarifies the situation. 86.144.169.9 (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I assumed about the exam results, although it is unclear, particularly as the SATs results are in the opposite order from lowest to highest across the page. The claim that the teachers doesn't appear to be verifiable in reliable sources (at least none that I have found), and it is something unlikely to be mentioned in job adverts.  Also unless this received any coverage other than what has been published by the school it is probably not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. snigbrook (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD renomination of Bristol Indymedia
I have renominated Bristol Indymedia for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). Since you participated in the previous nomination, good wikiquette counsels advising you of the relisting. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Radiate (label)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Radiate (label), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

John Davies Knatchbull Lloyd article
The earliest edits are missing from the history of this article - it was moved from John davies knatchbull lloyd, but it looks like editing continued there after the move and the history was lost when it was merged. Could an administrator please look at the history of these pages to see if there are any deleted edits that can be restored? snigbrook (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there are no deleted edits visible to administrators available at either place. Is there another article under which they might be? Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it - the article was deleted in 2007 to make way for a move, but it looks like whatever was there before (presumably the history of the page) wasn't restored. snigbrook (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrian_Oxaal
I was wondering why you deleted Adrian's page and redirected to James (band)? He has been in bands other than James and now this information is no longer available to fans.Fredpipes (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at the articles I redirected again, and maybe with this one the subject may meet WP:MUSIC, although I can't find significant coverage. It also needs more references, and it's unclear whether the other bands are notable (although one of them has an article). snigbrook (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Derigibles
I'd like to understand the rationale for the removal of my proposed deletion to Derigible. It is clearly a redirect to justify a typo. Also, nothing links to it, so it is useless. I don't see why it should not be deleted. Whether it's a full article or not, I don't see why redirects (especially those that are in error, such as this one), are not eligible for deletion. This one does not contribute anything to Wikipedia, let alone its quality. Bruno 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this redirect should exist, but redirects are not eligible for proposed deletion, also the proposed deletion had already been contested so shouldn't have been proposed again (see Proposed deletion). You could nominate it at Redirects for discussion. snigbrook (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the links. I'll see if I can get recourse there.  Bruno  20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Susanne Feinbaum
I have opposed the deletion of Susanne Feinbaum and removed your hoax tag. A quick Google search found the video to the techno song she recorded, and there were website mentions to exhibitions of her work, so there is some notability there. The question appears more to be the validity of the sources (and can we be sure that one source "doesn't exist", as opposed to having just been published in such a limited number that it is unavailable? Either way, I see the article clearly as not a hoax. Eauhomme (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So you know
I semiprotected your userpage for two weeks, and your talk page for 8 hours. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for protecting it. snigbrook (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Palmeiro edit
My Rafael Palmeiro edit was not libelious, it is a well-known fact that he lied to Congress about not taking steroids and that he failed a drug test 4 months after doing so. Please do not revert any further edits. Thank you. I&#39;m Always Accurate (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)\


 * Maybe there is a fact there (and it's already mentioned in the article), but your edit clearly violated NPOV in the way it was written (and the second part of it, which wasn't verified by sources, may have been potentially libellous). The other edits, to Keith Olbermann were also clearly biased and unconstructive. snigbrook (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ROME REVIEW
why are you deleting the rome review page? we're a literary magazine! TheROMANCENTURION (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry
could you explain a little more? what do you mean independent of the subject? i just used the site with documents to quote the magazine itself. all the other sources, however, are other sources separate from the magazine

TheROMANCENTURION (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ok
okay, i understand now. the issue hasn't come out yet. according to the press release and other content, the issue comes out saturday the 27th. can we wait until then before deleting it? there'll be a lot of coverage at that time.

TheROMANCENTURION (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny
Take a joke, man. Truth Lover85 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When do you go offline btw? (UTC time) Truth Lover85 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't. snigbrook (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven Wells and Sons of Ben
Show some respect for the dead and search google for any combination of Steven Wells, Phiadelphia Weekly, and Sons of Ben. The poor man dies of cancer and wrote a ton of articles about the Sons of Ben and you have the unmitigated nerve to claim that my respect of his legacy constitutes "vandalism"??? Show some respect when the man isn't even cold in the ground. 68.247.23.228 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because no source was cited, and because of this edit made by you, or someone with the same IP address, a few minutes earlier. snigbrook (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out on my user page. I've semi'd it for a day. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

CSD
When you tag something for speedy deletion, such as you did with T:ASE and P:ASE, please notify the page's author. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You said, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASTAR, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ZN and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASE were all deleted, and they weren't in the main namespace. Umm, look again. All 3 of those are main namespace. Wikipedia, aka WP: is main namespace. Portal, aka P:, and T: is not, they are pseudo-namespace. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP: is in the project namespace, not the main namespace. snigbrook (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

some one is vandalizing my site
the vandal has returned. please ban the idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias_Kifle&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enawga (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Sorry about that, I make mistakes;) Thanks for telling me for your opinion counts. Feel free to notify me if it happens again, thanks:D Schnitzel MannGreek . 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of of Category:People from South Ribble
A tag has been placed on Category:People from South Ribble, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This empty category duplicates Category:People from South Ribble (district), which is in use.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. thisisace (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't empty categories out of process
You did this with Category:749 earthquakes. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not constructive comment
Hello there, I'm sorry to have reacted in a such a puerile manner (re:Ceoil comment on Andrew Collins (Broadcaster) discussion section) and I can accept that my editing of aforementioned account holders comment was not a constructive contribution to this encyclopedia, however, I hardly think the original statement is in anyway more constructive than my editing. "Collins, you bastard" in no way shows any wit, intellectual thought nor does it contribute to this encyclopedia in anyway. I would hate to think that it's a case of one rule for admin. and another for everyone else? I have no doubt that you will handle this issue in good grace and deliver a quick succinct solution.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.91.254 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the comment doesn't appear to be constructive and maybe it should be removed, but editing another users comment to make it say something else is vandalism. snigbrook (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point. I am glad we are on the same page here and as I said at the start of our correspondence I hold my hands up! I done did wrong! So when are you going to remove the man who is incapable of spelling vandalisms pointless comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.91.254 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's worth removing, as it's clear from the context that the comment is intended to be humorous. snigbrook (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All you had to say was one rule for admin. and another for the sweaty masses. My editing was simply a contribution laying atop another contribution. It was being humorous and at the very least should have been kept beside the original comment and noted as a hilarious reworking. But I'm sure the view is much clearer up in the ivory tower of administration where all occupants are infallible.

Thank You --94.197.91.254 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

citation for change to Mark_Brake page
I have a copy of a grant proposal where Mark Brake made fraudulent claims about his qualifications. How can I show this to you?

citation for change to Mark_Brake page
I have a copy of the fraudulent grant proposal to which I refer. How can I cite this/show it to you? Ashboy44 (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on what type of source it is, and whether it is a reliable, third-party source: see Reliable sources and Citing sources. snigbrook (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the actual grant proposal in hard-copy format (I could scan it). So how should I cite this? Ashboy44 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some templates listed on Citation templates; however I don't think the source you mention would be suitable. It would appear to be a primary source and it is unlikely to verify the claim that it was fraudulent – also using this in combination with other sources would probably be an inappropriate synthesis of published material.  If there is any doubt over the suitability of the source, it may be more appropriate to mention it on the article's talk page. snigbrook (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The grant proposal contains the claim on page 19 of 26 that the proposer, Mark Brake, has a PhD from Cardiff University. It is a matter of public record that he does not, but I also have several letters from, amongst other people, his post-graduate supervisor, that he did not obtain a PhD. So would these be acceptable? Ashboy44 (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This would violate WP:SYN, as the claim that it was fraudulent was not specifically mentioned anywhere; also "fraudulent" would mean that it was intentional which is also something that would probably not be verifiable. It would probably violate WP:V, as you suggest that they are unpublished primary sources. snigbrook (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. So if I were to say "Brake has also submitted grant proposals claiming to have a PhD, which he does not possess" and cite the primary source as this unpublished grant proposal which I have, and the matter of his not having a PhD is a matter of public record, am I OK? Ashboy44 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not, if only primary sources are cited. If there is no independent third-party coverage of this it is probably not important enough to be included in the article. snigbrook (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But the article has not citation for the claim of attracting some 5 million in funding, and I know this figure is disputed. Surely it is important, if the article is claiming 5 million in grants to balance it by pointing out that Brake has made grant proposals with a claim of a PhD which he does not possess. If the grant proposal were on a web page would it make any difference? Ashboy44 (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you dispute something, and there is no source cited, you can remove it; you can explain on the article's talk page. Attempting to balance it by adding material that doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies isn't an appropriate solution to this.  If the claims you mention are accurate they may be appropriate for an article in a newspaper or journal, but they should only be included in the Wikipedia article if that coverage already exists. snigbrook (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User page indexing
Please note Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center
User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies related to Islam and Muslims
I have removed a socks edit he is a known pov pusher indian nationalist so I believe he does not have the right to edit wikipedia look at his other sockaccounts he needs to be stopped 86.158.236.235 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the proof of the socks editing the same articles if you don’t believe me: this user aka Hkelkar created this account for a single edit, now check this sock he/she also edited the same pages with the same pov,  another sock account for the same articles he’s trying to fool people but hes not fooling me I suggest you protect the articles remove his POV edits and that’s that thank you 86.158.236.235 (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These accounts were all made within 24 hours of each other 86.158.236.235 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of them look like socks but a few of the edits have been constructive, also some of the content you removed on Controversies related to Islam and Muslims was added by who doesn't look like Hkelkar. snigbrook (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snigbrook, this is banned user Nangparbat. Hkelkar is a banned Indian POV pusher, while this guy is a banned Pakistani POV pusher. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the indian pov pusher Hkelkar started this not me so Indian biased pov admin nishkid64 can go eat air i only removed Hkelkars edits nothing less nothing more 86.151.122.43 (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Steven Wells
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please read WP:PA 174.146.70.1 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've only made one comment there, and it is clearly not a personal attack. snigbrook (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)