User talk:DoriSmith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  ... (up to 100)

Greetings!
My name is Ryan, and it's my pleasure to welcome you, DoriSmith/Archive 1, to Wikipedia! First of all, I'd like to thank you for joining the project, and contributing to articles and discussion. I hope you can continue to take part in Wikipedia, because we need more valuable editors like yourself.

If you are new and need some assistance, here are some great links to check out:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia are the primary goals and most important rules that we follow.
• These help pages are important if you'd like to learn more about specific processes.
• The tutorial is a hands-on approach to learning all about editing.
  • For a "crash course" in editing, head on over to Redwolf24's Bootcamp!
• Writing a great article is a noble accomplishment. An article you start might end up on the Main Page!
• The Manual of style is an in-depth group of pages that will teach you how to make articles look their very best.

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, find out where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Before I go, here's one more tip. When you post on talk pages, be sure to sign your name and the date by typing four tildes: ~~~~. That automatically generates your username and the date. Again, welcome, and happy editing!  --King of All the Franks 07:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

What do you mean by your edit summary in this edit? How does restoring an article meant to threaten the livelihood of the subject, "allow for discussion" any less than any other version? In addition, why are removing the consensus version of the page? Guettarda 13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who's asked this, but since you bring it up here and you've never answered it anywhere that I can find, I'll do it again: how is this "article meant to threaten the livelihood of the subject"? This isn't new information; it's public, it's documented, and it's reasonably NPOV. As such, it's perfectly reasonable for it to be on Wikipedia.

And so for as why I am "removing the consensus version of the page?" -- again, please show that what you want is the consensus version. Yes, there was an AFD. The administrator that closed the discussion & deleted the article later agreed that he'd done so in error. Prior to that, the consensus was Keep. Again, you haven't backed up your opinion, and given that you're the only one claiming this, I'm not seeing that there's consensus on your side.

Repeating that you want the article deleted and refusing to support your opinions for doing so is insufficient reason to continue deleting it. You reverted the article 3 times, and a different editor reverted it each time. That ought to tell you something. Either you're alone in your opinions or you're doing a poor job of explaining them. Please try to do more than just say, "it's an attack page," because currently, no one else sees it that way. Dori 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer "agreement"

Your "(oh please, oh please...)" gave me a badly-needed laugh, my first all evening. Thanks! Karen 05:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I'm always happy to try to bring a little much-needed cheer to contentious situations. Dori 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Luther Burbank article

I just wanted to let you know, since you edited it at least once, that it is now nominated as a featured article. It might not make it since it still needs some more work. Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)