User talk:RickDC

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DVD+ R/W 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Democrat Party"
Rick, thanks for looking after the Democrat Party article. I agree with you. It shouldn't be in wikipedia. Griot 03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks hombre, for asking for a Democrat Party mediation. Griot 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rick, Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) Griot 23:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of Northeast Corridor
Hiya! You might want to double-check your edits before saving. Your edit removed a large chunk of the article, including about half of an editbox (which some might even consider vandalism!) Be careful next time, ok? :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Washington Post
Just wanted to say I really liked what you did with the Post article, especially in rephrasing its political positions. Very well said. NickBurns 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pyrology
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

lindacroppformayor.com site hacked by spammer?
Hi. If you get a chance, take a look at the exchange on my talk page at User talk:A. B.. It looks like a page you linked to good faith from the Linda W. Cropp article may have hidden spam embedded in the source code (designed for search engines to see, but not human readers -- see the article on spamdexing). We're kind of scratching our heads over this one. It looks like you know DC well -- and maybe, hopefully, Ms. Cropp's organization (I wonder if they know about this). --A. B. (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * False alarm -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. --A. B. (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New York Times Edit
You had taken out a paragraph I wrote about The Times misleading readers because you had claimed it was "just a sentence in an editorial" and that did not warrant putting it in. The whole credibility of a newspaper's editorial's positions are directly put into play if they do not have factual merit to the argument. It goes to show a purposeful misleading of its readers and it should be noted, especially given that they did not correct themselves about it. --Arnabdas 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about one sentence on the editorial page, but the point is that Editorials are opinions based on facts. If the facts are not true, then how can the opinion be valid then? For example, if someone is trying to advocate everyone needing umbrellas because of a storm this past weekend in a certain area, when in actuality no storm ever existed, undermines the credibility of the argument and should be pointed out. Editorial pages give opinions, but opinions must be based on facts. They may spin facts by ommitting information, but to specifically say one thing happened when another thing didnt goes to credibility and should be pointed out. Arnabdas 18:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC),

Homeowners Association
You reverted an edit that states that election fraud is common in HOAs. ccfj.com has done a good job showing that this is the case, and the reference is quite good. You let stand that "there are few regulations regarding elections in HOAs". Wouldn't you agree that it is a fait accompli that election fraud would occur? Your interest in the Constitution should provide ample background on why a private governement, without any checks and balances, without any free press, a single party political system and no independant judicary would be less than idealistic, especialy with no oversight of elections.

Editor issue
I noticed you have had a bit of a problem on the Seymour Hersh page with some recent edits. Myself and another editor have had issues with the same person on other pages and have recently submitted a sockpuppet investigation request. I thought I might point it out to you, as I noticed the edits on Hersh were involved. The sockpuppet page is at Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar, if you have any comments or input. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it's your turn to deal with him, now that he's back from whatever holiday he was on. Good luck!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome
I'm more than happy to weigh in on an issue like this. We've been dealing with the exact issues, with the same person, on two or three other articles. Good luck! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Capital Community News
A tag has been placed on Capital Community News requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)