| Revision as of 02:48, 20 February 2009 editLonelyMarble (talk | contribs)Rollbackers4,584 edits →Obama question: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:09, 20 February 2009 edit undoChaser (away) (talk | contribs)Rollbackers519 edits →Obama economic section: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| Please explain how was ]. I'm familiar with the policy.--] - ] 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | Please explain how was ]. I'm familiar with the policy.--] - ] 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :May I ask why I need to explain to you when I made it plain in the summary? Quickly, it still smacks of ], trivia, it seems to be trying to predict the future, and so on and so on. Plus, the original creator never once brought it up on the talk page, but yet told others to bring it up for them. Finally, that article is written in summary style, which means things first go into the daughter article before they are added to the main. Then, if they are added to the daughter article, it has be confirmed as something important enough to be included in the main article. Does that make things simpler for you? ] (]) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | :May I ask why I need to explain to you when I made it plain in the summary? Quickly, it still smacks of ], trivia, it seems to be trying to predict the future, and so on and so on. Plus, the original creator never once brought it up on the talk page, but yet told others to bring it up for them. Finally, that article is written in summary style, which means things first go into the daughter article before they are added to the main. Then, if they are added to the daughter article, it has be confirmed as something important enough to be included in the main article. Does that make things simpler for you? ] (]) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've been too busy to respond, but the issue has been usurped by events (signing the stimulus). I didn't need things made simpler. I disagree with you and wanted an explanation instead of dueling edit summaries. Reasonable people can respectfully disagree.--] - ] 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Apologie== | ==Apologie== | ||
Revision as of 04:09, 20 February 2009
Before you plan on typing a comment here please note: I am not an admin but a plain editor. I am not so versed in Wiki guidelines and rules that I can spit them out in a moments notice, but I can easily look them up. Most conversations/articles I tend to be quiet and let people edit away as long as the edits are constructive. However, I will step in when someone vandalizes an article, reverts against consensus, pushes a POV, or in any other way has a personal agenda. Please note that is my main goal. There are only a couple articles that I participate and the rest I monitor.
Thank you very much.
Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too.
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Secret Barnstar Award.
|
You Found Me! |
| This user has found Amulet Heart's Secret Page! Who will be next? Can you find my Secret Page? Ver. 2.5 |
I found the secret link, can you?
Barack Obama
"On January 20, 2009, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand sent a congratulation message to Barack Obama"<<< Why did you delete it? Explain to me ,please. --People's Alliance for Democracy (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Simple, we do not include every little congratulations that Barack Obama has received due to the fact that he has received hundreds from a variety of world leaders all notable in their own name. Plus, it did not have a direct impact on the man's life and does not need to be included in that summary style biography. If you still feel it should be included, then bring it up on the talk page. Brothejr (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Obama question
I don't necessarily object to this deletion, but did you do it because it isn't sourced, or because you see it as contentious (would it be contentious if it was sourced?), or because it doesn't belong in the lead? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to say that all of the above are correct. My main reasons were that the paragraph was very contentious as everyone who went there felt that this issue or that issue should be in that paragraph. Looking at the paragraph, there was no reason for it being there in the first place. None of the stuff in that paragraph was an achievement of Barack Obama. Added to that, the stances in that paragraph could conceivably change at any time. Finally, nothing in that paragraph had been sourced and even if they were sourced, it still would have been inappropriate to have it in the lead. There is a whole section in the article discussing some of his stances, plus a whole sub article that also discusses everything in length. Brothejr (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know I undid that deletion. You can see my reasons and give a response at the discussion here: Talk:Barack Obama#LEAD. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Obama economic section
Please explain how this paragraph was original research. I'm familiar with the policy.--chaser (away) - talk 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- May I ask why I need to explain to you when I made it plain in the summary? Quickly, it still smacks of WP:OR, trivia, it seems to be trying to predict the future, and so on and so on. Plus, the original creator never once brought it up on the talk page, but yet told others to bring it up for them. Finally, that article is written in summary style, which means things first go into the daughter article before they are added to the main. Then, if they are added to the daughter article, it has be confirmed as something important enough to be included in the main article. Does that make things simpler for you? Brothejr (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've been too busy to respond, but the issue has been usurped by events (signing the stimulus). I didn't need things made simpler. I disagree with you and wanted an explanation instead of dueling edit summaries. Reasonable people can respectfully disagree.--chaser (away) - talk 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Apologie
im very sorry about any inconvenience i have caused within the George Orwell page. I was just incredibly keen on sharing my views on the genious of George Orwell with other wikipedia members. I apologize once again, spingoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spingoo (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's no problem. :) I'm glad you liked the book, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to post what you thought of it. Brothejr (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)