User talk:Rd232/archive3

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

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)

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)

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

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)
 * responded on Talk:Fred Goodwin. Rd232 talk 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Thanks for replying re checking Fred Goodwin's directorships: I needed someone to push back so I could say my piece, but I hope you are comfortable that it was supporting your stance and wasn't in any sense criticising you. - Pointillist (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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

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)
 * You're welcome, but no to indef block: we don't normally indefinite block IPs and also we don't use blocks punitively, only to prevent more/future problems. (WP:Blocking policy) If they come back with the same behaviour, the next block will probably be longer (depends on the blocking admin). Rd232 talk 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if I was an administrator, I'd block that IP indefinitely. Might be the first time someone did that. Petunia465 (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OR tag
I explained on the talk page why it's there. You removed the tag anyway. Please restore it. THF (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the talk page:

The recent edits have cherry-picked primary sources of Atzmon's views to present him in the most favorable light, in violation of WP:OR. That's how we got into this dispute in the first place, because Drsmoo reasonably wanted to balance these quotes with other cherry-picked quotes that showed that Atzmon was not remotely reasonable. The only views of Atzmon that should be in the article are those that have been noted by reliable secondary sources. THF (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD note
I already stated I would not do any refactoring of an AfD page several times, including at WP:ANI. Please don't let ChildofMidnight's continuous harping influence you. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am entitled to my opinion, and it is unreasonable to have this editor harass me relentlessly for it. I apologized for editing the AfD immediately after I was told it was inappropriate, and then this "editor" filed a report at ANI about it. This has become a bigger deal than the AfD itself, and frankly I no longer care what anyone thinks about my motivations. I will not be bullied by an agenda-driven editor like ChildofMidnight, and I will no longer tolerate lectures for something I have already apologized for. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made the clear statement on the talk page. There will be no further statement on this matter from me. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my first two comments here explained everything. What followed was just needless badgering by a POV pusher (ChildofMidnight). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disgraced" in James Crosby (British businessman)‎
"Disgraced" keeps on popping back into the lead para. Do you think semi-protection would be appropriate? - Pointillist (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to that, a newly-registered editor Babylon93 (talk • contribs) has started debating it on the James Crosby and Fred Goodwin talk pages. On the assumption that this editor was at least one of the anonymous accounts who kept adding back "disgraced", it's a good sign that s/he is now engaging in discussion. Can you get involved on the Talk page softly-softly nice and tactfully (I don't want to bite)? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't signed I'll remark that the note was left by the editor I last reverted; I noted I was drawing on the BLP exemption for the 4th revert. Also it was left after I'd asked for page protection and started an RFC. See Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Rd232 talk 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not established that there is a BLP. I would hesitate to say that the claim is just an excuse for edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Presuming that you mean that it's not established that there is a BLP issue, I'll point you at WP:BLP. Rd232 talk 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean really, how is this sort of editing not a BLP issue? Rd232 talk 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That edit came after you made your complaint about my edits, and my complaints about your edits. I already explained to the user who made that edit that I thought it was a mistake. But, since I find myself with critics on both sides, I hesitate to make any deletions to the article, and perhaps (now) violate 3RR too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but similar issues have been around for days (at least), and clearly are a BLP issue. And even if discussion ultimately were to conclude that every single change in this direction was an improvement of the encyclopedia article on Gilad Atzmon, BLP requires extra caution, evidence, discussion. Rd232 talk 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse
I have nominated Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Sandstein  22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hasselbeck
Stop reverting back and forth - this isn't a substantial BLP issue so the edits (of which there two distinct parts) should be discussed here. The family member para is well-sourced and is constructive since they are notable, with WP articles. All the rest of the disputed additions are newspaper-style editorial and unsourced opinion (WP:NPOV, WP:V) and should be left out. Rd232 talk 12:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232:Thank you. This is what Ive been saying all along! That which I added is sourced. I tried in vain but was ignored. Thank You. My stance is that whatever part/word/section that redpen has a problem with it what s/he should fix. Instead redpen just deletes/reverts my info. THANK YOU! 70.108.110.22 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA Follow up
My apologies if I came across as dismissive. The WQA page is clear about opening cases that you're already discussing elsewhere. It's always my goal to resolve issues, but I'm not going to go counter to other activities ... especially those relating to more "senior forums". I am not trying to downplay the events leading to the WQA filing, just asking that we follow process. I don't monitor WP:AN, but if you want me to continue to follow this situation, I can. Please note, the person you've complained about has a history of being somewhat ... serrated ... with their interactions with everybody, but usually not so much as to be considered by the community to be overly uncivil. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

 * It is completely inappropriate to use vandalism warning templates in a edit dispute (as you did here) - however frustrated you may be. If you can't resolve the issue by discussion with the user, ask for external input. Rd232 talk 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the actual warning, you will see that it isn't a vandalism warning at all. It is an NPOV warning. As an administrator, you should be able to tell the difference. The editor was being warned for yet again adding information to an article that was completely non-neutral, as he has been doing repeatedly for many, many weeks. When I get some free time this weekend (and if he is still doing it), I will be filing a comprehensive WP:ANI report asking for an investigation into his POV-pushing activities. No need to apologize on my talk page - I will assume this was simply a mistake on your part. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad. Never heard of these things, and I don't like them (not levels 3 and 4, anyway). Rd232 talk 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was the second level 4 warning he has been given by me after an escalation of warnings (see his talk page). There have been several instances of non-neutral edits, original research, synthesis, edit-warring and BLP violations. Rather than complaining about my warnings (which are all legitimate), perhaps you should be examining his history and either topic-banning (much of his stuff is Obama related, and that topic is under probation) or blocking him for his bad faith editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

unwatching article
Sorry. I regret the contentiousness of the whole thing. I wish it was different. The other day I was thinking of Rodney King's simple but moving statement during the LA riots. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Loic Le Meur
Thank you for reverting the false information on my page. I admit I never edited Wikipedia so I am learning, where is the best place for me to add information and sources about the page to make it accurate? In the "talk" of the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiclemeur (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal template
I worked on editing the template for proposals, and have put a copy of the final template below. Although it is a good idea, there is little activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, so I may just put a message on the talk pages of the members asking them to reply.

Your feedback on the new template is welcomed - either on the proposal page or my talk page. DeMoN 2009 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Hamdani
Good job! I was about to report User:Yasser Hamdani as a likely sock, but you got there well before me. Fences and windows (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
More information - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf edits
FYI - Sami Yusuf is for some reason a very controversial topic, with multiple mostly-IPs making edits without sourcing. I think the Whistleblower account is the worst of them, but don't think he's alone. Thanks for the blocks. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * no prob. Rd232 talk 15:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality question
Hi. Could you offer an opinion at IDF T-shirt. Some users believe the article lacks balance and required NPOV, while other editors insist the article is fine and does not need a tag. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * erm,OK. Rd232 talk 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

EPmock
Hi, just wanted to let you know that one of your user pages is showing up on : . Unomi (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed Elbaradei RfC
Hi, I added a bit to the RfC if you wouldn't mind me requesting for more comment. Thanks, --68.251.187.176 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name‎
Please see my reply in the AN/I. This was merge/redirected per consensus already and Piotrus has completely misrepresented the situation. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
I appreciate for your comments yesterday, and hope that you do not give up on the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew
It would be better if you did act in the editing of an article until you understand what issues are involved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ? 10/10 for condescension... Perhaps if you tried harder to explain and support your position, I'd be able to understand it. Rd232 talk 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CAoTtT Mediation
You participated in a dispute about an entry on Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Would you agree to participate in requesting Mediation - or at least agree to abide by the outcome? Please comment at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * done. Rd232 talk 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on BLP Discussion Noticeboard
Thanks, Rd232. You mention, "Unless there are other sources to contract this, it seems OK." Where can we find this notion of "unless other sources to contract" in the wikipedia guidelines? Better understanding all the guidelines is super helpful, so please refer me to the section in guidelines discussing this. Thanks again for your contribution. I've learned a lot about several new wikipedia issues in recent months, so I am sure you will be able to help. Hrannar (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Deleting references
Could you please post your concerns in talk befor removing entire references? The sensitive nature established by the AFD should caution all editors to refer to talk for major removals/additions. The referenced you removed did what it was supposed to do: verify Gunness as the spokesperson for the UNRWA. The last source (11) I believe included Gunness statement. I didn't write it, that is for certain. The original article could have been updated or someone might have removed a source without me noticing. I will check history. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. The original statement came from the Jpost article: scroll to second highlight of Gunness. I don't know how the sources got mixed up. Also, more Gunness from CNN: source. Sorry for the confusion! Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to reiterate my appreciation for your contributions to James G. Lindsay. AFD aside, it is good to see actual collaboration/solving disputes in talk...even if does get a bit hostile. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. But you know the AFD should be the same thing - simply the venue for discussing whether an article should be deleted, on the basis of whether it meets the guidelines for inclusion (primarily notability). (NB I came to that deletion discussion via the WP:AFD list, which I occasionally skim.) Rd232 talk 10:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability?
I have raised the issue at the admin's noticeboard. I feel that this article has a good chance to be created and I also wanted to commend you on writing it in the first place. I'll be watching the discussion to see where it goes. Best, TN X Man  00:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Rd232 talk 01:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rd232. Re: your comment here - I think that particular response is a real stretch, but I do understand where you're coming from. I personally don't like to see material deleted from Wikipedia, not that I'm one of those "I"-word guys, I try to judge each article on it's own merit, and to perfectly honest, I don't even spend that much time looking at the XfD stuff. I go through there once in a while so I can learn and understand the procedure, and the rationale of these debates - but I'm getting off topic. I like the article, and I'd like to vote keep if I can. (you'll notice that I only commented, I haven't !voted yet). I first looked at the article last night, and after you put another hour and a half into it today - I noticed that it's almost doubled in size, and more than doubled its refs. I don't know Rd, I still think this thing is rubbing up against selfref like a $50 hooker trying to convince a John. Like I said, I don't know why you didn't just put the essay tag on it and avoid all this, but we'll see where it goes. It's good writing, and good research - hopefully it will survive the AfD. Best of luck — Ched : ?  00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well in answer to your question, I'm not interested in writing an essay, I'm interested in writing a Wikipedia article. Rd232 talk 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I honestly didn't mean any offense Rd, if you took it that way then I truly apologize. — Ched : ?  01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't take any, sorry, I was just stating a fact. Rd232 talk 01:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Notability in Wikipedia
I have nominated Notability in Wikipedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Notability in Wikipedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article creation wizard
Hi, just wondering if your proposal to direct new users towards an article creation wizard was making any progress or died a death? In my opinion WP:VP is a good place to announce a proposal but progress is better made elsewhere. We might be able to talk about it at WT:WPAFC if you haven't lost interest in it. Best wishes, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Projpol
One of the biggest problems with policies is that they aren't policies. Read WP:ADMIN - can you find a rule or statement of convention? What happens when a convention is violated? And so on. I think the way to go is to extract actual policy from the various 'policy' pages that we have. I'll be working on extracting a list WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/List of actual policy. If you'd like to talk about the project, I'll be hanging out on irc, freenode server, channel #wikipedia-projpol at least for today, though I might be away for brief periods. If you don't have an irc client, http://widget.mibbit.com/?server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23wikipedia-projpol is an easy way to get on. –MT 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger Cohen
Could you please revert your recent edit, and then explain the reasons for what you did on the Noticeboard for BLP? The Squicks (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
is a conversation in which you may wish to partake. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Obscure a User
Is it possible to obscure a certain users view of my Contributions page? I have a good reason for this. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not possible. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After I switched off, I realised that even if it was, they could look anonymously!! I'm sure it's technically possible to hide my contributions page entirely, could this be done for a short while? I suspect I'm being stalked, is there any protection against that? HarryAlffa (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you asked me this (or why someone else replied to you here!), but anyway I'm pretty sure it (a) isn't possible and (b) never will be. If you have a problem with someone following you around and being disruptive, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for that. Rd232 talk 18:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for that :). HarryAlffa (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit by revert
I have noticed that, instead of discussion,you has simply reverted the move to the talk page and request for discussion. Please re-revert. You should note that a recent arbcom decision has come down hard on edit warring in I/P articles, and if intelligent discussion is not forth coming I will consider taking this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TROUT. You're trying to game the system by removing consensus content and not even bothering to introduce new evidence (your opinion having previously been rejected by a number of editors). Rd232 talk 17:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Self-hating Jew
Hi. I guess the title was a little over the top. I toned it down. — Malik Shabazz 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
From; "...it's obvious from looking at WP:PROJPOL that it's in the early stages and doesn't 'have resources' (it's a Catch-22 - if no-one wants to use it until it works, how is it ever going to work?). And unfortunately I don't have a pool of tech people in my pocket; one objective of projpol is to develop a list of people with specialist knowledge for just this kind of situation" I'm conflicted here, I like the brain that thought of the WP:PROJPOL idea, but at the same time your comments on reliable sources makes me think your thinking wouldn't gel well with any technically minded sort, and I would put myself in the category of people with specialist knowledge, as you should have recognized by my essay. The projpol has possibilities I think, I will make some positive comments on it there - sometime. :) HarryAlffa (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the compliment. But I'm surprised by your remark about reliable sources, because a "technically minded sort" should immediately see how straightforwardly a policy designed to regulate sourcing of Wikipedia articles doesn't apply to creating Wikipedia policy. This does not, obviously, exclude referring to external sources in policy discussions as appropriate; but it's rarely done and when it is, invoking an unrelated policy isn't helpful. Rd232 talk 19:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A technically minded sort would use reliable sources for forming any opinions, on articles or policy. That's all I'm saying. And you agree with this;"does not, obviously, exclude referring to external sources in policy discussions" I didn't say anything which could be construed as "Policy MUST be made by reference to material from reliable sources". If you think the W3C Separate structure and presentation has no relavence in discussing markup then ... HarryAlffa (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee article
The sentence in question is not my or anyone elses interpretation. It is a classification, and one that even she would proudly agree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsingh11 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look. I did try to discuss it, but this was ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbsingh11 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * there has been no discussion since the page was recently unprotected. Rd232 talk 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion
Hi. Please advise:. I personally don't understand why the article doesn't deserve to be here. Thank you. Chippolona (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi Rd232. I wonder if you would have time to look over discussion at Talk:Chernobyl disaster and perhaps help to resolve the situation. Johnfos (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)