Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Cumbrowski

Moved from Review Page

 * Comments made by other editors on the Review Page that are not reviews

Dr Steven Plunkett 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Cumbrowski, your guidance to me on setting up my talk archive was clear, easy to follow, and what's more, IT WORKS! Thanks friendly guy. Maybe I can ask you again when I run into some more user problems?? Best wishes
 * Thank you for your comments. You are welcome, I am glad that I could help and yes, you can certainly ask me again, anytime. Cheers! --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cumbrowski, I don't agree with your removing the template from the PrimeQ article. There are no third party references - thus violating the "no original research" rule. Let's uphold Wikipedia's high standards impartially. --Simonay 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded to your other message at my Talk page. The review page is not for debates, but to express opinion about my work as Wikipedia editor. I removed the self-published template, because I stripped the article down to its basics, leaving only information, which are verifyable because of the simple fact that the service exists on the web (and is referenced to by the article). This has nothing to do with the services/companies notability, which you are free to challenge. You are mixing up a few things here. Your choice of templates shows that too. There are better templates and procedures to deal with the issue at hand. Please also note, that the article was left in status "stub" for very good reasons. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 12:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a new editor and not familar with most things at Wikipedia . That is okay, we started all out that way. I suggest to check my Wikipedia Resources. They might help you to get up to speed a little bit more. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 13:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)