Revision as of 18:48, 20 June 2008 view sourceFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsm →Kim Delaney's age← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:48, 21 June 2008 view source Jeffpw (talk | contribs)9,574 edits selective pruning. Guess I'm back in a limited capacity now that my class and Hillary's campaign are overNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center><br><div style="align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;"> | |||
'''<font color="red">This user has ].</font>]'''</div><br></center> | |||
== ] == | |||
Hi Jeff. The case has already opened, so you may wish to remove your statement (I think a clerk will remove it anyway) - once the case is open the main page isn't touched. It should go on the discussion page, or in one of the various subpages. ] ] 10:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:And I would suggest you put your assertions, with diffs to back them, on the evidence page for that case. ] (]) 11:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Man, this whole time I thought it was my reply to your last edit that upset you. Give a speech next time or something, will ya! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Well thanks. I remember seeing Dynasty, not so much watching it, and there's maybe a braincell or two left that recalls even that. But if it's the surprise witness everyone thought was dead gimmick, I get your meaning. I'm content to just watch this one from the ]. Who needs eighties TV? Plenty of epic drama here yet to come I think! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Not taking sides, but...== | |||
was probably a simple mistake. I remember that for a while the software was not always reporting an edit conflict when it should and thus inadvertently deleting recent posts in that manner. --] 10:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
==] Newsletter== | ==] Newsletter== | ||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | ||
Line 83: | Line 69: | ||
<small> This newsletter was delivered by ] around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). </small>] (]) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | <small> This newsletter was delivered by ] around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). </small>] (]) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Why do you keep reverting my edits without any explanation to me. You say something about improving the scholarship, but all you do is undo what I just did before. If you look closely at my edits, you see I am adding noteworthy stuff. In the most recent you see I added tonic immobility, and I make the section on conflation..../child sexual abuse better. I think it makes it clearer that they way people see it today is way different than how the ancient Greeks did. I don't know why you choose to pick on my contributions when I haven't done anything to you. Again, look closely at what I actually changed. Or at least tell me directly. Thank you.] (]) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
== The assault on pederasty == | == The assault on pederasty == |
Revision as of 07:48, 21 June 2008
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The assault on pederasty
They may be sockpuppets or they may be simply characters acting in cahoots with each other, gathering offsite to organize their attacks. Fact is I do not know the "parasite removal" methods at all, never bothered with all that warfare. However, for all their huffing and puffing I think they are failing: they are doing the grunt work of pointing out weaknesses in the article, helping me see where references are needed. So far I think they have strengthened the presentation of the material, and perhaps did a service by removing some stuff that was "a leap too far." I just have a bit more work to do reviewing their deletions, to make sure nothing valuable gets trashed.
That is the whole charm of the system, when it works: the harder you try to undermine legitimate material, the more irrefutable you render it. The only thing that is needed is to have more than one responsible editor keeping an eye on their shenanigans, a single player is easily overwhelmed. Haiduc (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Kim Delaney's age
Your "left the building" tags made me wary to post a comment on your talk page, even though I see that you edited Misplaced Pages yesterday.
Anyway, I am wondering if you know whether the age currently given in Kim Delaney's article (that she was born in 1961) is her correct age. It's been changed back and forth a few of times. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)