Comesincolors2

Please add comments below. I will reply here unless you ask that I reply on your talk page, in which case I will be happy to continue the conversation there (it's confusing to me to have a conversation on two pages at once).

George W. Bush recent edit

Hi Comesincolors(2). Just a little personal opinion: I think "a majority" would be the better choice. "majorities" makes it to general and also sound to be less focused on the survey (by the "feel" of it). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Floridianed - the reason I chose "majorities" is because there were three polls, and therefore three different majorities. But obviously this is not a big deal. thanks, Comesincolors2 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I didn't read the sources lately and therefore I just trust you with your answer and it makes sense to me now. And yes, it's not a big deal at all and so I put a comment on your talk page rather than making a somehow BLUNT rv. or change at the article (and having to go over the whole thing again). Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin teen preg material

Please, add that to the Political Positions article first, get it vetted there, and then see if it can be put in the Palin article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's relevant to budget, and impeccably sourced. The fact that it may not be flattering to Palin is entirely irrelevant. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I followed your advice[1]. I don't agree with the efforts to exclude it at the main Sarah Palin article, but if enough editors disagree with me nothing can be done, even if their objections go against NPOV, VER, etc. Thanks for the good advice. --Comesincolors2 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sarah Palin article

Please immediately stop reinserting removed information on Sarah Palin. Per WP:BLP, poorly sourced information may be removed by anyone. If you continue to reinsert it, you will be blocked from editing. Please use the talk page to discuss the material instead. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you should criticize me for not using the talk page less than 10 minutes after my edit, when I haven't even had a chance to do so. As an admin, you ought to have your AGF together better than that. As for the edit: The last time I checked, it's OK (desirable even) to restore material that is well-sourced. The sources in that section were mainly from ABC News. Were you aware of that? I trust you'll be leaving a warning on the user page of the editor who deleted it, asking them not to delete well-sourced material? Thanks. Comesincolors2 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)