| Revision as of 05:51, 29 July 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 2 August 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Lepricavark/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Birthday Committee/Calendar/Today}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Birthday Committee/Calendar/Today}} | ||
| ==Wally Pipp== | |||
| Hi. I never thought I'd edit Misplaced Pages. I do have the reference re Wally Pipp. I looked this up quite awhile ago and finally landed on snopes.com. It has the reference date of June 3, 1925, New York Times, following with "later in the week" of June 3, 1925. I don't know how to insert the "" <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You are welcome to send me the link to the snopes article if you wish, although I don't think snopes is a great source for sports information. There is an entire section in the Pipp article devoted to the various theories as to why Pipp sat out that day. I don't think anything else needs to be added to the article, but I'll take a look at the snopes article if you wish to send it along. ] (]) 16:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA == | == RfA == | ||
Revision as of 06:00, 2 August 2017
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Today's Events
January 10, 2025 |
|---|
Holidays
|
| Birthday |
Adminship Anniversary
|
| First Edit Day |
|
Edit | Purge Other events: this month | this year |
RfA
| File:New Zealand TW-17.svg | Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen Let's discuss it 23:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC) |
- It was a pleasure to support your candidacy. Best wishes, Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
RfA Cullen328
Omitting the ambivalent, and hopefully wrongly interpreted, "take care", would have increased the perceived sensitivity to a large amount. In spite of opposing to all the PC-derived crap of urbanity, civility, safety of spaces, ... I still try to adhere to a higher level of sensitivity, more fully de rigeur, than what I perceived here from the verbiage of an admin to be. Purgy (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- It didn't seem the slightest bit ambivalent to me. Someone cast a POINTy neutral !vote not based on the candidate's qualifications. Cullen responded in a very gracious and sensitive manner. Lepricavark (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)