User talk:Oinky

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Royal Exchange (London). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Leebo ^T/C 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Exchange edits[edit]

Your edits to those two articles contained insults and violated our neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. Leebo ^T/C 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Two articles" ? Oinky 11:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Exchange (London) and Tourmaline. Leebo ^T/C 11:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)৳৳[reply]

Got it. So, for example, if I wrote in the Tourmaline article that Theo Fennell do not reveal the heat-treatment status of stones they sell in jewellery as rubellite that would be ok because it is a fact, but if I say they are terrible jewellers for doing so that would be an insult and not ok ? Oinky 07:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be better, but it would still require a reliable source for the information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires that all information be verifiable. If you have a newspaper article or similar source, then it's fine. If it's your own original research, then it's not. Leebo ^T/C 11:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Winnie-the-Pooh-Society, Cambridge[edit]

Dear Friend: I have replied to your illuminating post on the discussion page for Andrew Sullivan, as to whether Mr. Sullivan WAS or WAS NOT "piglet" in this student society. I believe we are onto a big story, here. WHAT IS HE HIDING??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_Sullivan Codenamemary (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

A bit late but...

Hello, Oinky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Oinky. There seems to be an edit war going on at Andrew Sullivan. The statement you added is not cohesive where you placed and is out of place. The subject you referenced is no where else in the article, so the addition makes no sense. Please discuss issues on the talk page and don't edit war, as that is contrary to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you may know. ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 14:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject you referenced is no where else in the article, so the addition makes no sense" That's not correct. The subject I referenced is Sullivan's election to office which is mentioned (another contributor's words, not mine) in the preceding half of the same sentence - I simply added a subordinate clause to an existing factual statement. Please read my edit again. If you still think it is "not cohesive" and "out of place" I would be grateful for an explanation of where in the article it would sit better. I don't intend to waste any more of time editing this particular article given the reaction of certain people, but I am genuinely puzzled by the supposed rationale. I would love to think that professional standards of biographical writing are being applied here, but I do appreciate that other contributors are doing their best in a field which is not their "day job". If you can shed any light to reassure me that would be great. I have messaged you directly as well. Thank you Oinky (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piglet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theo Fennell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

In 2006, Theo Fennell Plc stock was listed on [[Alternative Investment Market]. By August 2013 the share price stood at less than 10% of the high

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Oinky. 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)[reply]