| Revision as of 14:34, 15 January 2010 editCutOffTies (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,033 edits →Gillian Welch: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:20, 16 January 2010 edit undoSdiver68 (talk | contribs)99 edits →Miklasz: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| ::Thanks! --] (]) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ::Thanks! --] (]) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Miklasz == | |||
| You edited my entry to Bernie Miklasz despite providing 3 links to the source of the controversy. Not in violation of any wiki guideline. Please explain. | |||
Revision as of 04:20, 16 January 2010
| This is CutOffTies's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 |
|
 Archives |
| Edit this box |
Superdrag
Can you elaborate on what is original research on the Superdrag talk page? Thanks --AW (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple Question
Are you Anti-Whig or just anti-Ballot Access News? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.133.78 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neither. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
John Annarumma?
Is there a reason that you continue to change the Florida Whig Party site Clayton Schock and John Annarumma sites? You say Mr. Annarumma's reads as an advertisement but it reads only facts and differes from no other political candidates bio. You decided that Muncie free press is not credible becuase of its looks? Take a look at the Drudge Report and say it appears any better. Your continued actions over the last couple of weeks have come across as a personal mission by you and are on the verge of Vandalism. You even at one point claimed that this persons official campaign site was not considered reliable. What is your personal attacks on these 3 sites I listed intended purpose? You asked for changes they were made and now you found another reason to alter them. Why?Rigga101 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am simply following the wp:copyvio, wp:reliable sources, and wp:notability guidelines as laid out by the project. Why would a person's official campaign site automatically be considered reliable? I don't recall saying that, but I do know that in the next few hours I could say I'm running for office in some minor independent party, create a website and make up all this stuff about my credentials. Would that make it reliable? I'm not saying that's what these candidates did, but it drives home the points made in the wp:reliable sources guidelines better.
- Your allegations of vandalism and personal attacks are laughable. Every edit I made is clearly backed by an established Misplaced Pages guideline. Perhaps you should read the wp:pillars of this project to understand better. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Running
We would welcome you to renew your involvement with WP:WikiProject Running. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
legitimate and verifable contributions
some of my contributions may be unpleasant but not "Negative and controversial" my disclosures to the school authority and the Police are on record the school's achievements need to be in the context of the adversity we faced and this included sexual abuses by a few teachers. sadly some boys suisided as young adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vctm64 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
LeRoy Rooker
You are vandalizing the page on LeRoy Rooker by blanking valid criticisms. Rooker was a public servant/government employee for a very long time. His agency, the US Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance has a long history of failing to enforce the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Case numbers could be provided to support this fact but, as these pertain to confidential student records, they cannot be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.193.9 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per the guideline on biography of living persons:
- Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
- You and another user, User:FERPAExposed (unless they both are you, very difficult to assume good faith with a name like that) have only added criticism without a trace of a reference to back the material. I suggest you read about reliable sources, verifability and citing. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Gillian Welch
The overhaul looks great. I'll keep an eye on the article and help with any GA review issues. Bms4880 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Miklasz
You edited my entry to Bernie Miklasz despite providing 3 links to the source of the controversy. Not in violation of any wiki guideline. Please explain.