User talk:PAVA11

This is the user talk page for Grsz11, where you can send messages and comments. Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will reply to messages left here on here unless you request I reply on your talk page.
Also note, I automatically archive my talk page using MiszaBot. Any topics older than 30 days will be sent to the archives.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAVA11.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 2008: Jan-Feb, March, April, May-

Reverting Palin

A before the fact reference for an interview is inappropriate after the interview has occurred. You deleted my text for the Gibson interview, which accurately described what was in the reference, and substituted a piece published prior to the interview that did not mention the actual content of the interview. Please be more careful before you delete material and use less relevant references. --Zeamays (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't replace a reference. Take your whining elsewhere. Grsz ^talk 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, no you didn't replace my reference, you deleted it, and replaced it with an old one that didn't substantiate the text that I included. Please do no use language like "whining". That is inappropriate here. --Zeamays (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I remove a source. I changed the wording of the text to go along with the source that was there. Get your facts straight. Grsz ^talk 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my edit by the way, in case you couldn't find it and realize I didn't remove or in any way change the source. Thanks, Grsz ^talk 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Hi there, you deleted a whole paragraph and called it a 'slight reword' in the edit summary. Careful there, this kind of thing has consequences. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was a mistake. I only thought I was editing the foreign policy paragraph, and didn't realize I got that other section in there too. Grsz ^talk 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to get whacked for nuthin', eh? That's ok. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gravina

You are using an improper usage of the 3RR warning. I am reverting clear vandalization of the article, and have consistently warned the party every time. He has already exceeded 3RR and is in repeated violation of blanking, OR, and NPOV, per my and other persons' reverts and warnings. I have also previously posted in the discussion page about this. Duuude007 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No absolutely clear vandalism. This isn't vandalism at all. Just pointing out the rules. You don't have to do it all yourself, you'll get help. Grsz ^talk 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Grsz, could you please explain your reasons for reversion at Talk:Sarah Palin#Personal life section, so we can reach consensus on weighting of the Wasilla speech? Thanks. Kelly ^hi! 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grsz ^talk 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have to agree with Kelly here that that material is totally UNDUE. Moreover, and on a completely separate level (I do NOT come to wikipedia to be blindly partisan) I think you are hurting our cause. It is patently clear that the reason for including the section is to raise doubts that she is a fanatic (and as an atheist myself, I have such doubts). Anybody who is sympathetic to religion, however, will just see the section as an unwarranted and clumsy attack on religion. Like many attempts to add POV to wikipedia, that section will only backfire. Homunq (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama FAR

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarah Palin

Trolling? looks like relevant discussion material to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wrong again. Article talk page is for talking about the article, not it's subject, like you're trying. Grsz ^talk 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter is being discussed in the context of its inclusion in the article after the material was removed. The edit you removed gave background context. I don't think the inclusion of the material on the talk page was turning the talk page into a forum (or a tabloid).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manner you're presenting it in isn't to initiate a discussion on if the information should be in the article. Grsz ^talk 04:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Fixed that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AAHA

Yeah I just found out a few mins ago, Who knows if they'll survive. Until low level hockey is more organized and affiliated (much like minor league baseball) we can expect big changes from year to year. It will be interesting to see what happens to the MWHL now that they're down to three teams. I suspect they might put the season on hold until they gain new frachises for next season or fold completely. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]