User talk:Archival McTannith

Welcome, from Journalist

Welcome!

Hello, Archival McTannith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Since others have mistook me for a program or bot of some kind that automatically welcomes newusers, Ill just like to start putting it out there that Im 100% real :) ^{Journalist ^C./^{Holla @ me!}}

Internet Troll

Hi Archival —

the section on Types of Trolls is getting a bit ridiculous. It looks like you've put a fair bit of work in it, so I'm not going to immediately delete it off-hand (as I did before, which you replaced without replying to my comment on the Talk page), but I strongly question the worth of any of it. First, the long section on 'Master Trolls' is clearly POV, and looks as if it was written by someone who believes themselves to be a 'Master Troll'. Second, most of the names appear to have been created by you alone, and have very little presence on the web. This is reinforced by the fact that you seem to have no problem changing your original term 'King Troll' to 'Master Troll' and seem to add more types of trolls as you think of them. I'd say this all violates Wikipedia's policy of No original research, in that these are typologies you seem to have pretty much come up with yourself (and neologisims as well — "frame-looping"?). I'd suggest you see if there's anything in that long section that contributes to an encyclopedic article on trolls (instead of "anything anyone can think of on trolls"). As it stands, I think the whole section should go, and I think others will agree with me, but I welcome a more concise section without pages of unused typologies. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]