User talk:Dreish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Dreish and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Contents |
[edit] Roy Suryo
The article as it stands may be poorly written and slanted towards the negative, but that's not a reason in itself to excise large portions of text (especially without comment; I tried to engage the user on his/her talk page to no avail). If true, at least some of the information removed should probably stay; but if you know it to be false, by all means remove it (or rewrite it) yourself. In any event, it seems User:Avianto reverted the changes (which I had intentionally left unreverted, even after the other user had evaded a block, so that users more familiar with the subject could judge for themselves) with the summary "revert changes from 'subject' himself, hi roy!" The anon has again reverted, and as always, did not explain.
I should state that I'm entirely ignorant of this person, so I do not presume to know if what I was restoring was correct—I was merely defending the article from seemingly baseless deletions. I hereby recuse myself from the article. Hope this helps. -- Hadal 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Jodeci
The edit was made by a hard-banned user, User:Mr. Treason. Snowspinner 14:56, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Your query at Talk:Roy Suryo
Hello again. :) Pages which have been properly deleted via VfD are indeed candidates for speedy deletion. I've deleted the article and directed the user to VfU if he/she wishes to contest the deletion. I also deleted the talk page, which is why I'm replying to your query here. Cheers, -- Hadal 17:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] your threats
Issuing blanket threats is really unhelpful. Please stop doing so. Surely it is important for contributors not to act in a maner that suggests old ladies at a Methodist Circle meeting who use gossip to torment one another and the other members of the congregation. -- 66.20.28.21
- I'm not an admin, so I don't really think that counts as a threat. It's more of an observation. And I think we should definitely act like old Methodist ladies. Anyway, let's see my new sig, and find out why it doesn't work. --dreish~talk 18:49, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
[edit] your bullshit reverting on my user page
I will blank my own discussion page whenever I feel like it, thank you very much.
[edit] 66.20.28.21's case
The Arbitration Committee has ruled on the case of 66.20.28.21. You may be interested in seeing the final decision of the case. -- Grunt ҈ 16:38, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
[edit] Gmail
I have invites for the above! if you want one, drop me a line at foxyfaerie(at)gmail(dot)com and I'll send you one back!! Selphie 14:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gmail
I have invites for the above! if you want one, drop me a line at foxyfaerie(at)gmail(dot)com and I'll send you one back!! Selphie 14:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Marietta, Georgia
I just looked at WP:RFC which mentioned Marietta, Georgia. It looks like you have already have a hopeless problem, so move on to WP:RFM just to show that you have made an effort in trying to solve the problem, and then quickly move beyond that to get the arbitrators to expand their current ruling. If you can show that they have made no unquestioned edits, perhaps the ArbComm will permanently ban them. BlankVerse 08:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Georgia Move
As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The 9/11 Controlled Demolition article
I've removed for the moment your paragraph "In addition, surviving video footage from near the base of the towers before and during their collapse fails to record any sound of explosions of the magnitude heard during a building demolition." and parked it on the article talk page. I'm not wholly sure where it should go, but I think not in Oral History. Good to have you editing the article. There are a load of people who have decided to make it an excellent article after thr two recent AfD nominations. I'm sure you already know this, but you are welcome, as is any editor. We'd love to have further excellent contributions to the article to ensure it is wholly NPOV and verifiable. Any edits that don;t seem to fit we're taking to the talk page at present to build a consensus. As you know, the subject matter is hugely controversial, which is why I felt you deserved a fuller explanation. Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I just tossed that on there somewhat hastily -- I won't get a chance to flesh it out and reference it until this evening. That's one issue. I assume the other one you're referring to is the fact that the oral history section is morphing into a pro-con discussion of whether or not there were explosions. That speaks to the need to reorganize the page. Regardless of that, I do think that eyewitness accounts of explosions (which offer no way of measuring the loudness or timing of the sound after the fact), and statements about explosions in the basement that have never been logically connected to a collapse beginning at the top of the building need to be presented alongside objective records such as video footage which can be evaluated by anyone interested enough to actually view the source material. --dreish~talk 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are many issues with the article, or were as it stood after surviving either of the AfDs. In truth it was lucky to survive, but the fact that it did means that it is easier to take it and shake it and make it work. The overall objective is to have it good enough to be considered as a featured article.
- What we have to remember is that this article does not document the collapse of the buildings. It documents the conspiracy theories about the collapse, a very different beast indeed. This means that what would normally be secondary sources (at least for the collapse) can become primary sources for the conspiracy theories. As you can imagine this can make the interpretation of WP:RS quite challenging. Fiddle Faddle 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Somalia
My apologies. That was not my intent. Just H 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
