Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 63: Line 63:  
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Conservative to have accurately cited the articles.  Further, I think it best that his sourcing and citation be open for critics and admirers to see.  Also, it's extremely unencyclopedic to just take his word for it.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:11, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
 
I'm sorry, but I don't trust Conservative to have accurately cited the articles.  Further, I think it best that his sourcing and citation be open for critics and admirers to see.  Also, it's extremely unencyclopedic to just take his word for it.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 00:11, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
 
*Traditional values Coaltion and Concerned Women for America are precisely the sources we should be using and linking to for articles.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
 
*Traditional values Coaltion and Concerned Women for America are precisely the sources we should be using and linking to for articles.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
 +
Leaving aside questions of trust, it is clear that the vote is squarely against you, Conservative, with several sysops opposing the article. I believe that unless there is a significant change to the vote tally over the next day or so, the article should be deleted. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
675

edits

Navigation menu