User talk:Rd232

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you want to learn more about the contribution process, definitely check out the tutorial. It's a really simple and easy explanation of all the basics.

TIPS:

If you have any questions about Wikipedia and don't know where to look, try the How do I do that? section of help.
Get your feet wet as soon as you can by being bold in editing (and using the Show Preview button).
Read what Wikipedia is not.
Learn how to avoid common mistakes.
At Wikipedia, neutrality means representing all viewpoints as opposed to just one. Read the neutral point of view tutorial to learn more.
As you learn more about Wikipedia, you may want to check out the Manual of Style and the Policies and Guidelines.

Enjoy your stay and feel free to reply to this welcome message on my talk page. - user:defunkt

(To sign a post like I just did, enter three tildes ~~~ where you want your name to appear. The three tildes will automatically be converted into your username. Adding a fourth tilde will insert a timestamp, as well.)

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page

Archive of previous messages (to 19 October 2005) Archive of previous messages (October 2005 to Dec 2008)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um no thanks. I might if it was satirical... Rd232 ^talk 09:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reich Air Ministry

Hi Rd232

I note the changes you made to the article on the Reich Air Ministry. I think it was right to split it into two articles: one on the government department itself and a serparate one on the building. I'd have done this myself if I'd had a bit more time - in the event you've beaten me to it and that's probably just as well, as I think you've done it better than I would have.

The other issue I wanted to raise concerns the removal of the paragraphs about the Swastikas and other Nazi carvings, which you describe as removing unsourced rumour. As the person who put this into the article in the first place I should perhaps have qualified it, which I can indeed do - I can provide a printed source for this information (more than one if I rummage far enough), but it still leaves unresolved the wider issue of whether to include rumour/hearsay as opposed to hard facts.

Several text books, travel guides, printed photo captions etc. make a point of mentioning these carvings and the mystery surrounding them, as do many tour guides operating in that area of the city. As recently as last summer a senior German government official was quoted as saying how the matter is still a source of embarrassment in government circles to this day, adding that articles in German magazines and other publications throw it up again and again as often as once a week (it should be said here that most of these publications are probably produced by underground political groups with somewhat extreme views, and have limited circulation). But the point I'm trying to make here is that if the carvings are still arousing this much interest, unabated after so many years, then that would make them a key feature of the history of the Reich Air Ministry building, and therefore ought to be included in the Wikipedia article.

I would be grateful for your thoughts on this.

Regards, Tony the PixelTonythepixel (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested at Sunset

Hi Rd232,

After a quick browse through the history of Sunset I've noticed you've previously edited the page. Your input is now requested in choosing a new lead picture here. Thanks for your time, --Fir0002 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private finance initiative

If you take a quick google, you'll find that there is far from a consensus that private finance initiative is a proper name. Indeed, the Department of Health, which has arranged a lot of them uses exclusively lower case. The Wikipedia convention is for articles to use sentence case rather than title case. I therefore propose to move Private Finance Initiative back to Private finance initiative as your case for restoring my move has not been proven. Moreover, as the term "private finance initiative" is generic, your argument would only be valid for Private Finance Initiative (United Kingdom). Is that what you mean? Millstream3 (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your comment on my talk page. Millstream3 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Goodwin

Are you employed by Fred's Or the RBS PR agency.

Fred Goodwin was trading an insolvent company. That is not a subjective View it is a fact. It is a matter of record that the company was trading at the time it needed cash injections form the UK Taxpayers.

Now if this ever sees the light of day in court is another matter. But what is your problem with documenting this fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded on Talk:Fred Goodwin. Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I've been an admin on English WP for several years, and haven't edited any RBS-related articles before yesterday (AFAIR). Rd232 ^talk 13:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genc yesiller

Hello there, I would like to have the copy of the page you deleted; to keep it for the future. And for the fact that genc yesiller is notable or not, being a member of FYEG and CDN (the links on the article) which are quite notable; I think genc yesiller should also be considered as notable. Greetings Yudheyn (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. Though actually I didn't delete it myself. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudheyn (talk • contribs)

Thanks for commenting in the RFC in Talk:The Burke Group

Unfortunately, there is now a dispute over whether your comment had anything to do with the synthesis issue in the RFC itself. Can you go back and clarify your comment as to your position whether the disputed language about a lawsuit that did not involve The Burke Group is acceptable for inclusion in the article, and whether WP:SYN is violated? Many thanks, and sorry for bothering. THF (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chávez

Just because the Hugo Chávez article has a sister article for economic issues doesn't mean the main article can't have the short, one paragraph summary that I put there. The things that I added are very relevant - people who study economics understand that these things are the difference between socialism and communism. Chavez claims to be a socialist, but he is really a communist. Threatening farmers is a sign of communism, not socialism. Treating toilet paper as a luxury is a sign of communsim, not socialism. Communists like to harasss farmers - socialists don't. Chavez has never called himself a communist, but these actions on his part prove that he is one, and they should be mentioned in this summary.

I put a lot of effort into writing the economic part of the main article. I don't mind that a sister article was spun off, but at least please let me write a brief summary of the most important parts for a single paragrpah in the main article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All's well that ends well. Thanks very much. :) Durova^Charge! 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for blocking that idiot 75.175.233.227! I hate personal attacks! Oh yeah, and I want you to change to block from 31 hours to indefinite. That means forever to me. That will make him pay the consequences. Petunia465 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]