Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Hussein reference: False. Reasons have been given. And is this supposed to be collaborative?
Line 720: Line 720:     
: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 
: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
 +
:: Andy, this is false.  Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before.  I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page.  So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason.  And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there.  Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together?  Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog?  The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing.  Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog.  I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)
    
==Debate On Obama's Religion==
 
==Debate On Obama's Religion==
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu