User talk:Faedra

PLACE YOUR COMMENTS HERE:

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.

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 ANDJmabel

Ref: Personal profile of contributor Faedra

No such file from Fester.

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." --Smack 22:13, 8 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? --Golbez 20:28, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

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). --Golbez 22:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

My reversion

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. MrWeeble 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)