User talk:Rudykruger

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rudykruger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maryland, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudykruger (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) If you find facts un-helpful, you a)mis-understand the concepts of household income vs wealthiest state and b) ignore the fact that I referenced my edits to the US Census Bureau! I had a look at some of the comments and complaints on your talk page, and I see... never mind.[reply]

You don't seem to comment on why you removed more than one source, replacing it with one Tedickey (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources removed referred to articles referencing 2006 US Census Bureau numbers which had Maryland as the state with the highest median family income for the first time. I a) replaced all 2006 median household figures with 2007 numbers as released 3 days ago b) replaced links to 2007 articles with a 2008 news release from the US Census Bureau that notes Maryland as the state with the highest median family income and c) removed references to Maryland being the wealthiest state (which it is not; it is ranked 15th or so) and replaced that with the fact that Maryland has the nation's wealthiest households. Rudykruger (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Peter Garrett isnt the only place you've created a bit of controversy. I dispute your addition, thus the onus is on yourself to gain consensus from the talk page. I am well within my editting rights to continue to remove your edits which are not (yet) supported by the wikipedia community. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to WP:AGF. I had already spoken with an admin upon the first removal and they agreed it shouldn't be there. But hey, if you're right, take it to Garrett's talk page and gain agreement from other wikipedia users, which will allow you to override me. Enjoy :) Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually bothered to take the time to head to Talk:Peter Garrett, you would see I don't think they belong there either... and to your comments toward me in general, it must really get to you that not only do you have the ALP to contend with, now you've got the Greens who got over 9% of the vote last election. It will be very interesting indeed if/when the Liberals regain power, having to rely on the Greens as the balance of power in the senate. Good times ahead. Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland declared this project "a 50 to 100 year project" on July 15. The fact that Peter Garrett rejected this when looking after the Environment portfolio is a significant political event. The man has a GreenPeace background after all. I am sure Queensland will have something to say next week about losing a $5billion investment. Why should this not be part of his page?Rudykruger (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're so confident of it being noteworthy for his article, then i'm sure you won't have any issues waiting for the wikipedia community to back you up :) Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR excitement

Hello Rudykruger. The recent case that you filed at WP:AN/3RR let to a temporary article protection of the Peter Garrett article. In my opinion both parties are getting close to a violation, no matter who is right. If the edit war resumes when protection expires, that would be a bad thing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]