User talk:Red stucco

Hi! You left a message on my talk page, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you meant! Can you clarrify? Thanks! Trollderella 15:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Red stucco!

Hello Red stucco, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

Before you start doing a lot of editing, you might want to take the Tutorial. It gives a lot of basic info you'll want to get you oriented on Wikipedia.

Here're some handy links:

Help:Contents is the list of all of the information you need to use Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:How to edit a page gives editing help.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place to ask questions.
Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving, which is often an important feature.

Remember to sign your name on talk pages by typing " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp (which is mostly preferred).

Feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Take care, --Blackcap | talk 15:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters

An article for deletion discussion in which you participated has been re-opened. You may want to participate in the discussions at VfU:Albert_M._Wolters or discuss at Tony_Sidaway:talk how you feel about his actions.
Sorry for the spam,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegations

Warning. Sockpuppet allegations are taken serious here. If made lighty, or without good evidence, they are seen as personal attacks on someone's integrity. Frankly, no one is going to believe that User:Tony Sidaway is operating User:Trollderella as a sock. You might want to retract and apologize, unless you have very strong evidence. m:don't be a dick - this will cause more illfeeling and will do you no good. --Doc (?) 09:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, no need to apologise. It was an obvious false alarm, and it might have been less embarrassing for you, redstucco, if you had asked me about it first on my talk page. I don't bite, you know. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something going on that I don't understand? ;) Trollderella 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From q:Team America: World Police:

"Gary Johnston: Oh, no, we are'nt! We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild... are pussies. And Kim Jong Il... is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks - also - fuck - assholes... assholes who just wanna shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole... is a dick... with some balls. The problem with dicks is, sometimes they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate...

Gary Johnston: ...and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes, pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are only an inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know: If you don't let us fuck - this - asshole, we're going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit!" --redstucco 08:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future. ALKIVAR™ 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense

Hi there. Just wanted to clarify in response to your comment on my RfA. When I make decisions according to common sense, I use logic and reasoning. My point was exactly that; rather than be rigid and unable to handle unusual circumstances just because the rules didn't anticipate them, I'll use my own logic and reasoning to come up with a solution that both solves the problem and fits within the spirit of the rules. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks! —Cleared as filed. 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your votes on AfD

Hi, I have been looking over some of your recent votes on AfD, and noticed that they are based solely on whether the article have any sources listed, with a delete vote for any that have none. This is a very unusual way to vote, and I was wondering if you could explain it further. Should all unforced material be removed from Wikipedia? Should anything with a source stay in? Would you apply this to other encyclopedias? Thanks. Apyule 08:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the comments that you left on my talk page, I still don't see quite where you are comming from. The policy is for unverifiable, not unverified. Can you please explain a bit more, especially things like the length of time you would give people to add references to articles and how deleting an article without references gives a better end result than tagging it as unreferenced? (You can respond here, I am watching your page and will check back whenever I can.) Thanks again, --Apyule 08:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is one to ascertain the subject matter of an article is not a hoax or original research? I believe it is for the writer to cite sources as paramount importance. Yes I could go away and find a source relating to the subject and see if I can match every assertion to my source. If I do that, I might as well re-write the article.

I agree with you to the extent of tagging, in that I would not nominate articles on AfD, I would tag it with Template:not verified or something, but if an article has already reached Afd and has no sources then the article clearly has problems, and the best way forward is to have sources so verifiability and neutrality can be scrutinised. If amongst the article creators, and other editors wishing to keep the article, none of those can find and quote a source in the article in the Afd lag time, then I personally believe the article should go. --redstucco 09:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry Railway Station

Hi Red stucco, you asked about a credible publisher for the station. Have a look at [1], the railway's timetable. I share your skepticism of web sites, but I'm willing to believe that this railway station exists without going there. If, however, there's further reason to distrust this, please let me know. I'm very happy to weigh additional evidence in the hope of coming to a firmer conclusion.

Best regards, Fg2 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring the to the Florida Dept of Transportation website? TimL 16:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not in particular, this was a general observation. redstucco 10:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]