LeCorrector

Reply

Oh, first post, then welcome to wikipedia!

The point is that its OR unless you cite the source that made that observation. If you can link to an article in USA Today that says that then you are simply referencing, not making your own observations.

Also, I disagree re the entire 7 minutes anyway, I would argue only the first 2 or 3. But, per above thats actually irrelevant as well. Hope this helps  Glen  05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

digg

since u do not seem to check digg talk page ill tell u here - check it. u should not do thing unless your ready to defend it, so defend it 72.36.251.234 10:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Not That It'll Make a Heck of a Lot of Difference To You, but...

A little condescending, but I do at least take your point (though you might've checked the Consideration article first; it doesn't link to what you think it does). I'm not sure there can be much compromise between our positions. I personally revile the "click here to view an illustration of this topic" silliness; I see no reason to force an extra click on readers. I honestly and sincerely do not understand what is so revolting about a simple, clinical image of stools. As I've said, seeing it in my toilet is one thing; seeing it in a picture in an encyclopedia is another thing entirely. I also worry about where this will lead; if we hide this image, what's next? Human urine? Pearl necklace (sexuality)? Penis? I realize that's a slippery-slope fallacy, but there's also such a thing as "setting a dangerous precedent". Powers ^T 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

digg

there are comments in talk page you no reply to. reply and debate or spend rest of your wiki life undoing my changes. im ready to do latter - are u? 72.36.251.234 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Poo

Every article could use an illustration. Just because one person has presumably seen his own feces sitting in a toilet doesn't mean a clinical photograph illustrating it is extraneous. Is a picture of the Sun extraneous? Of the eye? Of the nipple? Of course not. Same with feces. I also think you're overestimating the number of people who are "squeamish" about the image; readers who have no problem with it aren't going to click the "Discussion" tab just to say "Hey, guys, I wasn't bothered at all by that image," or even, "Whoa, wasn't expecting that. Nice job, though." They're going to see it, react, and move on. It's only the people who are thoroughly disgusted by it who are going to take the time to comment, and those have been limited to just a couple of (mostly new) users a month. Hardly a tide of disgust. Powers ^T 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

digg

u say people explain. to explain is to address my point as i make. i justify each blog twice now. no one listen. they just revert. u say i waste editor time. i no make editor edit article!. editor waste there own time because they dont read my justifecation. that there fault, not my. u say i shuld make an effort to understand what been explained to me. bullshit. u dont believe that for a second. as george bush argument for war be unraveled do u try to make effort to understand wut u obvously didnt or do u assume bush wrong? i do former. if u mess one argument up i no longer give u benifit of doubt and u, lecorrector, have messed one argument up and have yet to present good follow up argument other than to say "i win, u lose, accept it"

convence me or i will continue to do thing that in past have motivated editor to waste time. simply because u waste mine 72.36.251.234 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

u are just hot air. u preach and preach but when time come for u to defend u cant, can u? 72.36.251.234 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

i not starved for attention. i just no like people who unable to counter counter yet have to much pride to admit they wrong. if u not wrong, u would counter, but u do not, so u wrong. u also suggest i have respect to use correct grammer - why? do u think who speak english as a second language and people on cell phones unable to make good argument? just like blog? why look at argument to see how good it be when u can just look at persons face? also, do u think u deserve respect? u are what wrong with wikipedia. self righteous person believe that believe know better than all else. thank u for setting wikipedia straight. i contempt u. 72.36.251.234 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

prove u not hypocritical

prove u not hypocritical with WP:V#SELF and go vote to delete Image_talk:Reserves2a.gif 72.36.251.234 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No Doubt

I'm a tad confused as to why you tagged the No Doubt article as having an introduction that was too long. There are two paragraphs of 4-5 longer sentences, and WP:LEAD states that an article of this length should have three paragraphs. —ShadowHalo 07:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I was your sock puppet

Apparently anon decided I was your sock puppet. I didn't even notice as I had gone on vacation. Have fun watching digg. --Mattarata 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Power Line

Thanks for your recent edit; you improved this article markedly. Please check out my subsequent edit (which, I must warn you, puts back some of the text you deleted), see what you think and edit as you see fit. Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 03:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums

An editor has nominated the article List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums. Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article List of Popular Pop and Rock Live Albums during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:05, 28 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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)