User talk:Racconish

Vanity

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you! Codrin.B (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing the articles you wrote from speedy deletion. I dream of horses @ 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE

Sorry, but with WMC's entry this Purpose article may be Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND ARTICLE now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New proposition made on article's talk page. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 08:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

?

I find this baffling. Instead of wasting time wronging rights and pointing fingers, perhaps use of new information in the latest article would improve the overall standards of wikipedia. Surely and experienced editor such as yourself would realize this. I find it absurd that you should delete my contributions, which as far as I see, have corrected and made the article more accurate. You even deleted an obvious correction of the spelling. If you genuinely have your interests set on improving the page, you should use your time to use information in the latest article and add to the page, not remove contributions by other editors, who may not have your experience, but may know more about the subject.

TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southpole1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added 5 references to the source you provided, which does not establish The Economist was wrong in calling Chamsi-Pasha a former textile agent. Please discuss matters related to the article on the article's talk page. Racconish ^Tk 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest article shows Chamsi-Pasha had no involvement with the business in any shape prior to his father's acquisition. To continually state an erroneous fact is not only wrong, but harmful to the credibility of wikipedia. I state this because the only way you could know more about this subject is if you actually worked for Moxon. i am a customer and am certain of facts, and information included in the Yorkshire post article are as accurate to the reality than any of the previous ones. You reverting changes would show an unwillingness to jointly improve the quality and accuracy of the page, which should be the objective of every editor and is without question my own. I hope you take this message in the right way, and help co-operate to make the page as best as it could be.

TY