User talk:Faedra: Difference between revisions
My reversion |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Useful and constructive comments from other users recorded on this page. All comments ultimately deleted, offensive comments immediately, all data can be found via 'history' tab. |
Please note: Useful and constructive comments from other users are recorded on this page. All comments are ultimately deleted, to make room for the latest items, ths offensive comments are removed immediately, (havnt had any yet) all data can be found via 'history' tab. |
||
<hr> |
<hr> |
||
Thank you for taking the time to bother at all!... |
Thank you for taking the time to bother at all!... |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
REF: useful Wikipedia pages: |
REF: useful Wikipedia pages: |
||
<hr> |
<hr> |
||
THANKS ALSO TO; [[User:Francs2000|Graham :)]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]]|[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[User:ALargeElk|ALargeElk]]|[[User talk:ALargeElk|Talk]] |
THANKS ALSO TO; [[User:Francs2000|Graham :)]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]]|[[User:ALargeElk|<nowiki></nowiki>]] [[User:ALargeElk|ALargeElk]]|[[User talk:ALargeElk|Talk]] | [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User:Golbez|Golbez]]| |
||
<hr> |
<hr> |
||
Ref: [[Personal profile of contributor Faedra]] |
Ref: [[Personal profile of contributor Faedra]] |
||
Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
latest... |
latest... |
||
I see you've deemed my earlier comment regarding the Wikifairy "offensive", and removed it. I didn't mean any offense; if offense was taken, I'm sorry. It was supposed to be "constructive." [[User:Smack|--Smack]] 22:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
---- |
|||
[[User:MrWeeble|MrWeeble]] 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Re [[Oceanic]]: Is this a copyright violation? You claim a source, did you copy directly from it, or did it simply supply you information? --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:28, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
''I just reverted your last edit of [[Thames Gateway]] and I feel that it is only fair that I explain my reasoning more fully. While I understand your feelings against this project, to use the phrasing that you did is not really appropriate in an encyclopaedia as it states your point of view too much''. |
|||
:Okay, thanks. :) FYI, I moved it to [[RMS Oceanic]] because the Wikipedia naming consensus is that ships contain their designation, even if they're famous (example: [[RMS Titanic]]). And since its first designation was RMS, I picked that. I'll make a redirect from both [[Oceanic]] and [[HMS Oceanic]]. Thanks for writing the article, I learned stuff. :) BTW, the info is at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)]]. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:reply: ([[User:Faedra|Faedra]] 11:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)) It is not an opinion that the present government has failed to locate weopons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is a fact. This comparison is relivent because the overwhealming evidence presented by the consultation process against an Airport at Cliffe also shows the government to be in error of judgement. The relitivity between the two illustrates the fact that government policy is flawed, and this must have a baring on the multi million pound investment scheme proposed for North Kent... |
|||
⚫ | |||
''If looked objectively at the question of WMDs in iraq, it is not related to this issue in any way except that you disagree with the decision made by the government in both counts''. |
|||
:This is not so, I was supportive of the policy of liberating Iraq from Saddam, but misled by the British government by their flawed reasoning. I do not wish to see such deception ruin North Kent. |
|||
''Likewise the bit about "a total disregard for public opinion" implies that all public opinion is against it - it isn't''. |
|||
: Such members of the public would do well to stay at home. |
|||
''Sorry for having to revert, your contributions to the page (may) have been invaluable, but I could see no way of NPOVing it''. |
|||
[[User:MrWeeble|MrWeeble]] 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|||
I just reverted your last edit of [[Thames Gateway]] and I feel that it is only fair that I explain my reasoning more fully. While I understand your feelings against this project, to use the phrasing that you did is not really appropriate in an encyclopaedia as it states your point of view too much. If looked at objectively the question of WMDs in iraq is not related to this issue in any way except that you disagree with the decision made by the government in both counts. Not everyone would agree. If you can find a source likening the two decisions, then it would be appropriate, until then I think it should be left out. Likewise the bit about "a total disregard for public opinion" implies that all public opinion is against it - it isn't. Maybe if you could find a poll or survey to support what you say, but unsourced like this is a bit too iffy. Sorry for having to revert, your contributions to the page have been invaluable, but I could see no way of NPOVing it. [[User:MrWeeble|MrWeeble]] 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:28, 29 July 2004
PLACE YOUR COMMENTS HERE:
Please note: Useful and constructive comments from other users are recorded on this page. All comments are ultimately deleted, to make room for the latest items, ths offensive comments are removed immediately, (havnt had any yet) all data can be found via 'history' tab.
Thank you for taking the time to bother at all!...
Special thanks to: (order of contact)
01 Thue 02 Burgundavia 03 Deb 04 Finlay McWalter 05 Charles Matthews 06 Acegikmo1
for valued advice and assistance.
REF: useful Wikipedia pages:
THANKS ALSO TO; Graham :) | Talk| ALargeElk|Talk | Jmabel | Golbez|
Ref: Personal profile of contributor Faedra
latest...
My reversion
MrWeeble 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just reverted your last edit of Thames Gateway and I feel that it is only fair that I explain my reasoning more fully. While I understand your feelings against this project, to use the phrasing that you did is not really appropriate in an encyclopaedia as it states your point of view too much.
- reply: (Faedra 11:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)) It is not an opinion that the present government has failed to locate weopons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is a fact. This comparison is relivent because the overwhealming evidence presented by the consultation process against an Airport at Cliffe also shows the government to be in error of judgement. The relitivity between the two illustrates the fact that government policy is flawed, and this must have a baring on the multi million pound investment scheme proposed for North Kent...
If looked objectively at the question of WMDs in iraq, it is not related to this issue in any way except that you disagree with the decision made by the government in both counts.
- This is not so, I was supportive of the policy of liberating Iraq from Saddam, but misled by the British government by their flawed reasoning. I do not wish to see such deception ruin North Kent.
Likewise the bit about "a total disregard for public opinion" implies that all public opinion is against it - it isn't.
- Such members of the public would do well to stay at home.
Sorry for having to revert, your contributions to the page (may) have been invaluable, but I could see no way of NPOVing it.
MrWeeble 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)