User talk:Drett

Drett , can you help me fight hte racist on the AFP article

Drett , I need you to help me to fight Nationalists/[National Socialists] and others from removeing the refrence to the Anglo-Australian National Community Council on the article about the Australia First Party. The AANCC is stronly linked to the Party. For example , Darrin Hodges the Secretary of the Southerand Branch of the Australia First Party is also the Director of the Anglo-Australian National Community Council (AANCC). The organisation's web site was at first the blog of the Southerland branch. For more proof that the Australia Firtst Party and the Anglo-Australian National Community Coucnil are racist , Darrin Hogdes the web master for the web site has posted lots of racist posts. --59.100.123.102 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Red Star

		Order of the Red Star
		I, therat121, confer the Order of the Red Star upon Drett for his tireless contributions to the fight agianist nazis , neo-nazis and the nazi Australia First Party and standing up to fight anti multiculturalism. Thank you. therat121 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Drett are you a Communist?

Drett it has come to my attension comrade that you have a lot of characteristics of a red. Do you have any links with Fight Dem Back , Socialist Alliance or the Communist Party of Australia. Pleas don't let you political views effect your managment of Wikipedia or any thing on this web site. Pleas don't be bias. --PETER THE GREAT 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cronulla riots

please revert back to user 124.84.161.25... there were minor changes tp other parts of the article made before the peter debnam extensions which you are against. thank you.

For the article to be "Neutral Point of View" it　it must be factual. As one user here has commented already, the articles linked to refer to Middle Eastern and in some instances explicitly state that, the article should therefore also state that where the source does ie there is is no source that Middle Eastern burnt down The Uniting Church hall in Auburn, (but you and I know who else would it have been... the chinese_) nonetheless, as there is no source, Middle Eastern should not be used as per wiki policy at the The Uniting Church hall in Auburn　part.

however, where the source refers explicitly to Middle Eastern as at the St Joseph the Worker Primary School drive-by shots then so should the article.

we must use a consistent methodology - where the source states Middle Eastern then so should the article - other wise it is emotive and non-"Neutral Point of View"。I therefore ask you to change the St Josephs back to Middle Eastern but not the Uniting church.

Australian League of Rights

I notice you have reverted my edit. My objection is that your claims are not sourced or referenced. If you are able to find sources please include them and let us improve the article. A simple revert-revert war will prove counterproductive. Unsourced or unreferenced claims are often symptomatic of manifest bias within an article. You should therefore understand my hesitance at allowing their inclusion, especially when claims of Holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism are being made. Refer to the talk page for more. Thank you for your concern. Maximus Meridius 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you should not delete facts from the article which are sourced - ie that Middle Easterns spat on primary children lining up for CHRISTmas Carols... this would demonstrate your non baised point of veiw in the matter, and also that you yourself are not emotional - i mean, you are editing facts our which are sourced!!

I will pray to Allah that your daughter is raped or your son is stabbed for being Australian... then I will ask you not to be emotional - you tolerate what does not tolerate you ;)

Fight Dem Back

I hope this is not going to become an ongoing saga. The reasons why I have re-written the FDB article are twofold. Firstly, The majority of the claims made on the website were unsourced, uncited and constituted original research, contrary to Wikipedia conventions. Secondly, the claims that were indeed sourced were sourced from the FDB website. While the FDB website may be an ideal source for trivial information, we should not be relying on it for information of critical importance. For example, we should not list campaigns sourced from the FDB site as there exists a self-serving bias. We would not rely on the Liberal party website for an evaluation of the Howard government, we would impartial and reputed seconday sources. As you can see from my edits, I have not written anything detrimental to FDB, I have simply relied on information from sources of good repute. Please read the Wikipedia article on references and original research and my point will become clear. Again, I would rather work with you than against you, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it is not a vanity, or a free advertising service. It appears the previous authors of the FDB site believed otherwise. Kind regards, Maximus Meridius 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the new article is not adequate, and I'm sure there exists greater information online (other than from the FDB website). My contention is however, that the earlier edit of the article was parisan, was based largely on unsourced material (hence my claims of original research). I think it is fine for the trivial information, like structure, members, etc. to be sourced from the original page (this is no doubt the purpose of the Wikipedia policy), but the FDB page is structured more like a blog than a reputable source. For in-depth analysis or examination of FDB secondary sources, like the Age, or the Toowoomba Chronicle are more suitable. If I had relied solely on information from the AFP website for information to edit, for example the AFP article I would be accused of misconduct and bias. My point is that it is self-serving for political organisations to propogate embellished claims on their websites, and therefore their own websites should treated with little or no creedence. Apply the logic that you would apply to other articles, and you will see that my actions are not called for. What I do suggest however, is greater inclusion of reputable sources and relying solely on these sources for analysis and information of high importance. Regards, Maximus Meridius 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazis

I only removed it from Neo-Nazism after User:Nordic-Cross removed it from Nazi-Skinheads. They didn't give a reason and I was about to revert it back when I decided to check the fair use status. It said it could be used on the NZNF article but that Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement (bold and italics in original). I replaced the one on Nazi-Skinheads with another pic that was GFDL, but I didn't feel a need to on Neo-Nazism since there were plenty of other pics already. I didn't know it had been discussed previously. I'll go look for that discussion. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fight Dem Back AFD

This previous revision contains a seemingly non-partisan source. It looks like this version was reverted due to the massive content cut, and I see from the section above you've discussed it, but the reference does give independent verification of the group, so you may want to consider re-adding it to help it pass WP:V. Yomangani 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my opinion to 'Keep' but please check my comments - addressing them may help prevent further edit warring, NPOV and WP:OR claims. Dropping or contracting these sections to only contain the referenced info may be a solution (I can't find any references for these parts after a quick tour round Google, but you may have other sources). If you need any assistance later on, drop me a note and I may be able to help. Yomangani 09:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Camp Sweeney

Camp Sweeney Drett 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitcentral

Thanks for the heads up. Nightscream 02:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adjusting the Gerald Fredrick Töben article to be more truthful... You the man! 71.192.178.26 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous editors be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Save from AFD?

Hate to break this to you, but Karmann was one of the people that contributed to this delete feeding frezy by nominating deleting successful automobiles, even though he had an article in it. He nominated AfD primarily as an attack on my content. It's all my fault, Mmx1 first found out how easy it was to delete a scientific failures list, again primarily to delete my content, even though I had modified only two out of 25 entries. This is an epidemic. If you want to join my side, see my user page. This place is a combat zone, I want to change it. --matador300 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit conflict at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Bold text

It is problematic

I am attempting to clean up the category, but I have gotten my hand slapped a few times. The problem is Toben himself, per the article, denies being an anti-semite. This is probably a ridiculous lie on his part, but I'm not sure how we can make that definitive judgement. Although, you make a good point about the Austrailian judge... still, I'm not sure how much that overrides WP:LIBEL. So, let me put it this way -- some of these articles I've been cleaning I have put on my watchlist (for example, St. John Chrysostom), and many others I have not (such as Gerald Fredrick Töben). I'm going through the category once through and washing my hands of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Therat

Yes, now that you point it out it's pretty obvious. I've blocked the account. -Will Beback · † · 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)