User talk:DCAnderson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:26, 22 May 2006

Welcome!

Hello, DCAnderson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Grand master ka 04:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories

I liked your changes, and I hope we can add them back in gradually. Everything at Wikipedia takes forever; no page is ever done. SkeenaR is a decent guy who I usually disagree with, but he's more open to reason than many. I can't think of any more platitudes right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC, you put "other than al-qaeda orchestrated the attacks". There are people who believe that the government knew what al-quaeda was up to and let it happen on purpose to justify this war or that policy. That is a conspiracy theory. It is too broad to say that all the alternative theories to what is presented in the official explanation involve someone other than al-quaeda orchestrating the attacks. Just so you know, I didn't make that change just so I could revert one of your edits, please don't think that. But I did disagree with the content. SkeenaR 00:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not going to pretend to know what actually happened. It seems to me that the official explanation is a conspiracy theory just like the rest of them, inconsistincies and all, only easier for most to swallow. SkeenaR 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your removal of unsorced OR material (with amusing edit summaries): May I recommend just commenting out the material for now so if sources are found it can be more easily put back in? JoshuaZ 05:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real DC? SkeenaR 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grok you in complete fulfillment. Morton devonshire 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie. And, by the way, your cleanup of that whole page has been impressive. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write in my talk page

Please never write in my talk page again. Thank you.--Pokipsy76 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I see your point, but it was minor. Also, assume good faith. It would have possibly made sense to put "small" there instead of "little", but if you look at his user page, English is the second language. Also, see his talk page.SkeenaR 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic

I never said I believed any of those 9/11 theories are true, just that they should be presented in a NPOV manner. I consider myself a skeptic too, and I realize that one can be overly credulous, but also overly skeptical. If you think they are all BS, it doesn't help your case to try and supress them, but if theories are not in the realm of magic and they could possibly have a basis in reality, they should be presented, considered, and tested. Then and only then can they be proven false. What do you think goes through a conspiracy theorists mind when his ideas are actively supressed? It puts more fuel in the fire.

And yeah, Colbert is hilarious! Here he is on video from our favourite conspiracy theorists.

Colbert with Bush [1] Colbert with Kristol [2]

SkeenaR 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are right, they shouldn't be allowed to run rampant, but they have been given the boot from all the mainpages. This is probably the correct thing to have done, but now that they have a page which is supposed to describe them, which is also probably correct, they are being nailed with POV torpedos and some of the editors are using cheap tricks to keep certain things from being presented. A good related example is the Collapse of the World Trade Center where the dominant group won't even allow a list of Collapse Observations such as the collapse times or horizontally ejected material. It's ridiculous. If it's true, but brings parts of the official version into question because of inconsistincies or whatever, it's not gonna make it. I know that Wikipedia policy is being violated in a lot of cases in this regard, and it is unmistakably POV driven. SkeenaR 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion page heading

Thanks for this change!--Bill 18:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a FAQ, an FAQ... ;-)

I noticed you modified my grammar and I thought I'd share with you a little laugh I had about it. I think both "a FAQ" and "an FAQ" are appropriate because some read "Eff Aye Queue," while others (like myself) read "Fack". --DanDanRevolution 08:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sos from thewolfstar

Hey, Bears have a soul! Or a spirit at lease I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section of off-wiki speech control. I am pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. And it was done illegally each time, I checked into it carefully. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggiethewolfstar 05:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey from thewolfstar

I don't know how to thank you enough for responding to my predicament. I have left several comments with various editors and gotten no response, up until yours, now. Your reaching out to help me is deeply appreciated. Although I am a fast learner and managed to catch on to certain things early on here, I still need help and support in doing certain things. I have made some personal attacks in the past, always in direct response of the harassment of others, right or wrong, and have already been blocked four times as a result of them (the PAs). SlimVirgin's comment was out of nowhere when I was doing nothing wrong and a quick look at my logs will show that her accusations are false. Can you help me with a request for mediation? (The mediation request is not just for SlimVirgin who I don't even really know) I need all the help and support I can get at this point. Thanks, in freedom from the cabal. Maggiethewolfstar 17:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCAnderson, sorry if I annoyed with my cabal assertion. I read what you wrote on your user page and it does make a lot of sense. Anyhow, thanks again for your help. Maggiethewolfstar 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow agent of vast timeless Illuminati/Jewish/lizard alien conspiracy

Blogosphere rants: Think of it as a badge of honor in the battle against incompetence, free-floating anxiety, paranoia, rumor-mongering, and scapegoating.--Cberlet 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Hygiene

I'll try to have a look at it. Maybe that will be a nice break from Anti-Americanism and its kin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Berg C.T.

I made some superficial cuts removing dead links and some of the most tendentious language. The next step might be a rigorous fact-checking. Or maybe a powerful physic. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Merging to a section in his bio is a good idea. This C.T. has died back as time has passed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason?

That you deleted my edits? -davec

Arbitartion

I appreciate it, and your facts are entirely correct, but I doubt the Arbcom will take the case. Usually they will recommend a Request for Comment first. Not that I think an RfC will do any good in this case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plz undelete rcegypt

RCEgypt is the first group in egypt trying to import this sport into egypt besides there efforts to make the sport legitimate in egypt as there were many restrictions by ministry of aviation and national security toward modllers, and finally they could get the support from authorities . al ahram is the first newspaper in egypt wrote this http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/786/fe4.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulmagd (talk • contribs)

Grant Smilie

Don't you idiots read the article? From WP:MUSIC:

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country

Right there on Smilie's page, as plain as English, his song has reached #1 on the ARIA Australian chart. Now quit this bullshit and focus on actually contributing to Wikipedia. Rogerthat ^Talk 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I think an Rfc would have been best. TruthSeeker is a single purpose editor who wants to use selective recitation of quotes to bolster his controlled demolition POV push. He continually calls others vandals and now has accused me of using a sock account...anyway, whether this works out of not at arbcom, in the long run, with his behavior and disruption, he will ultimately be blocked from editing. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on the subjects of Dimitri Spanoa

What is your purpose of harrassing me?...I am a writer trying to write about underground culture. my articles are already being published in other places. Whether you like what I'm writing about or not, people will see them.

Yes but you put a page on the moth writer page as calls for speedy deletion...your harrasing me. Why don't you try visiting who and what Dimitri is all about before censoring him...

and I was in the the middle of writing this article...that may be the reason that there are no citations yet.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keodrah (talk • contribs) .