User talk:Rearden Metal

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Rearden Metal! And thanks for weighing in on the September 11, 2001 attacks article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Rearden Metal, and have fun! Ombudsman 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birds are dinosaurs. Birds are reptiles. Birds are vertabrates. Just like humans are apes, mammals, and vertabrates. Wikipedia aims to be exact and correct; not to regurgitate myths like "The dinosaurs died out." WAS 4.250 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off label use of narcotics in the US

Hi Rearden Metal,

Thanks for the heads up and the referenced links. I'll revert the change I made to Buprenorphine. How tragic and unfortunate this country's drug laws are. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

internet troll

I reverted your edits to the article - see talk:internet troll. Hope you don't take offense, but I didn't see the relevance (nor neutrality) of the addition. You may want to reword it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended at all. I just want the Bill Of Rights back. Surely, you can see the relevance of a new law which makes internet trolling punishable by two years in prison? How can this possibly be construed as irrelevant to Wikipedia's article on internet trolling? I just don't understand. Rearden Metal 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged reference!

Hi Rearden Metal -- I just wanted to tell you I love your name, and I wish the metal really existed. (Though my heart skips a beat whenever I see those copper chain bracelets in the pharmacy!)--Magmagirl 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! I wish alot of the things in Atlas Shrugged really existed.Rearden Metal 01:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Like Hank Rearden! ;-) --Magmagirl 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologist

Why do you think, that my motives are suspect? And why do you call me a biased apologist? I would never call you an outright offender, even if I'd know you. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! Raphael1 02:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Issues

I am wondering if you saw my post at Talk:Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition#Constitutional_Issues regarding the section you wish to add.

My personal beliefs are most likely similiar to your in regards to the contitutionality of prohibition. But personal beliefs do not belong in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should not bring forth any new ideas, but only reflect what is already published by reliable sources and accepted in society.

If you can find a reliable, previously published source interpreting the constitution in such a way then the section can be include and atttributed to that reliable source. Thanks for your patience, it often takes a while to understand what wikipedia is and what wikipedia is not. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Peace article

Hi Rearden,

If the article gets put through an AfD (which may well succeed), then the history could be deleted as well as the article. Do you think the term has enough coverage by non-primary sources to survive currently? Andjam 12:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, easily. It'll pass another round of AFD without breaking a sweat- it always does. Rearden Metal 17:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RiverGlass article

Hi Rearden,

I just found the page here which seems to be as good as any place to discuss the riverglass article, or we could do it at the talk page for that article itself.

I certainly respect your POV regarding the wording, but I added some comments for your reading and discussion in that talk page that I'd like you to take a look at. We can continue further discussion here or there. Thanks! Brianbuck 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra

Nice edit.

CLear and clean--Ziji 11:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of For the children (politics)

I have nominated For the children (politics), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the children (politics). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. *** Crotalus *** 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Riverglass

The article Riverglass has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]