User talk:Brookie
| Manual of Style (MoS) |
|---|
 | This user account is secured with a unique committed identity. |
.gif){kind=small} | Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. |
Please post any comments below
Accounting firms
Hi Brookie, I thought the day started well, with us playing on the same side for a change. However, by the end of it I find you have been removing carefully cited work as "puff", and other work because it "appears" (to you) "to be placed promotion". I assure you that I have no vested interest or connection with the business firms whose articles I create or edit. It is discouraging to repeatedly find you deleting what I thought were valid contributions to the encyclopedia, some of which were painstakingly sourced, with such peremptory comments.
I don't want to get into edit warring with you. We are both experienced editors here. Can we find a better way of working together? – Fayenatic (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note - certainly don't an edit war - if you're not happy with my good faith edits - please feel free to revert them! I am concerned that some of these type of articles end up as a plug and I am keen to maintain NPOV. Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I have trimmed what I have put back. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)