User talk:DCAnderson

Welcome!

Hello, DCAnderson, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That you deleted my edits? -davec

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]

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)

Don't you idiots read the article? From

• 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.

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]

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.—The preceding

WImage:Hat.jpg OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats mate. Berg con is dead!

I can agree with your last comment on my talk page. I think it is close to the mark. But I also notice that some of these folks are so zealous in their attempts to have certain websites included, that they are possibly affiliated with the site or at the very least, brainwashed by the attention grabbing style of the websites...let's face it, the NIST and FEMA reports are dry and boring and unless someone (like me) has no life, they simply are not going to read 500 pages of text. Anyway, thanks for the support you provide on these articles.--MONGO 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was just wondering if you thought my job of merging the 9/11 report critisms with the main article was done well? I didn't realize there was original research as I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the topic (it doesnt really apply to me being Australian).

Thanks! Not too tough for a big Watchmen fan like myself. I really hope this article can make it as a featured article, but then I'm a little biased. Tombseye 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DC, Watchmen's looking good, but I'm wondering how much support we need for the article to make it as a featured article? I was thinking of putting some note on the Wiki Projects Comics discussion page to get people involved since the article's on the verge of making it and their input and votes might make the difference. I'm not suggesting telling people to vote to support the nomination necessarily so much as just getting them to consider the article. What do you think? Watchmen is pretty low on the list now so I'm wondering how things will work out. So far it's 3 supports against a probably retracted oppose. Not much voting activity frankly. Let me know. ciao. Tombseye 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DC, thanks for the comics barnstar! I'm glad it seems as if I spent all day at the library even though I spent only a few hours on-line and reading a few books I had lying around. Moore's like a lot of Brits in that he has a strong classical education and especially knows British and Greco-Roman philosophy as a result. I realized this when I studied in the UK. It wasn't hard to put together which philosophers Moore was drawing upon when he wrote Watchmen as a result. By the way, one guy is still not cool with the article as he believes it's not long enough. I may add more, but I think the article's pretty okay at this point. Can't please everybody I guess. Ciao. Tombseye 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update-Peta gives his support and we got another 'weak support' whose concerns I addressed so hopefully that's all good too now. And it didn't even take all day! ;) Tombseye 23:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For great justice. 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar for your tireless efforts in refuting irrational 9/11 conspiracism on Wikipedia articles and talk pages. Huysman 02:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome and congratulations! -- Huysman^{talk|contribs} 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of awards do they give for buying into government propaganda and being arrogant? Don't give an Ameriflag 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop; you're sarcasm isn't appreciated. What kind of awards do they give for buying into conspiracist propaganda and being gullible? Just kidding; trying to be lighthearted.  :-) - Huysman^{talk| contribs} 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just covert the tables ("Characters" and "Awards") to prose, and I'll support. --FuriousFreddy 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respond on User Talk Page.--DCAnderson 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should know in case you missed it! Cheers. Tombseye 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it buddy. We made a pretty good team last time and I'll absolutely help out. I'll keep on an eye on how things progress. Ciao. Tombseye 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I noticed this before, but Alan Moore is gonna need a lot more citations to get through. Tombseye 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See

Hi, DCAnderson. I see that you were one of the driving forces behind getting Watchmen to pass FAC. I'm currently working on the FAC for Fun Home, and was wondering if you had any advice on how to develop the coverage of themes, etc. — I see that issue came up in the Watchmen FAC as well, and seems to have been addressed to the reviewers' satisfaction. I see from your contribs that you're not around on Wikipedia very much any more, but if you happen to see this message, any advice or help you care to give would be welcome. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:RaptureSM.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale

.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]