User talk:Vandagard

I try to correct errors on Wikipedia.

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Amalthea 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edit to Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmed_Al_Megrahi
Please do not remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced speculation. Sky News are no longer reporting that Megrahi is dead, they have removed the story from their website and they are carrying a denial from his solicitor. Reuters and other news organisations are also reporting that Sky's uncomfirmed report (the only news organisation to have reported the death) has been denied. Fooey-fooey-flop-chops (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sky News has confirmed here that al-Megrahi is dead. Your accusation that I replaced sourced content with unsourced speculation is therefore wrong and insulting. Thank you. Vandagard (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That link had been included in earlier page edits and pre-dated the content you removed. The Link was to a Fox News story claiming that Sky News had reported that Al Megrahi had died.  The bit you removed was that Sky News had now retracted their earlier story. The bit you removed was sourced to the Sky News website retraction.  The bit you remained and your assertion in the edit history that "he is dead" was not sourced - you've provided this earlier link now here and on the article talk-page; but you did not include it in your edit.  You have requested an apology.  No apology is due.  You removed valid factual sourced information and replaced it with an unsourced assertion.  Fooey-fooey-flop-chops (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "but you did not include it in your edit". Yes, I did include this link in my edit (as reference number 3). So I did not remove valid factual sourced information and replace it with an unsourced assertion. Here is the evidence. The apology is definitely due. Vandagard (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mandy
I reverted your edit to mandy, the citation does not say that at all.If you want to discuss it, meet me on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the talk page, if there is a problem. Vandagard (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit war over this disputed material, the onus is on you to discuss b4 inclusion as regards new content Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on the talkpage and please offer your edit there for discussion previous to insertion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked you not to add it without discussion, don't add it back. a bio is supposed to be about things that last, not day by day worthless speculation about things that will never happen or are very unlikely to happen, if they happen we can add it then. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My edits do not just relate to Mandelson's peerage, which you seem to have an irrational problem with. You have reverted a series of other issues, such as image repositioning. Kindly put them all back into the article. Vandagard (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that, it was a consequence of your adding the peerage material, it will be difficult to do I imagine, if you don't feel to re make those changes then I will look at replacing them for you over the course of today, please let me know if you want me to do that or if you will look at it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll attend to it, thanks. Vandagard (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of course better if you are going to add new material that you keep the edit separate from any gnome type work that you may do so that if as in this case the addition is disputed then it is only the new addition that is removed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed all of them for you but this one ..the term "spin doctor" was applied; In relation to this he has been referred to as the...  I find that the expression in relation to this more reflects the situation, as it is his dirty undercover spin doctor activities that the name is in reference to. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very good move vangard, I just wanted to say that you have put the suggested edit is for the lede and I don't think you meant that do you? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No more comments here please: over to the talk page for my proposed addition to the lede. Thanks. Vandagard (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your addition to Mandelson
I have reverted your addition as I feel it is speculative and opinionated and adds nothing of any encyclopedic value to the article, in keeping with the WP:BRD style of editing I have opened up a discussion on the talkpage there for you to state why you think the addition is worthy of inclusion in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues at Mandelson talk page. Vandagard (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Gonzi article
Hi. The invitation for you to discuss intelligently on why you insist on burdening the Lawrence Gonzi article with stuff that's, at best, tangential, is still open.

Demdem (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)