User talk:Kevin: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
compromise possible I hope |
reply |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
:The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
::The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
::The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin#top|talk]]) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:32, 2 March 2009
Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Warren
Note Proposal 3 specifically removes all the problematic material you are concerned about re: the church's position as not relevant to a BLP on Warren. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also [1] the RfM just made for the article, which was not particlualry mentioned there. Collect (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that Prop 3 (this will shortly be confusing - we're up to 5 already) excludes this part, but I think that it does miss out important information. I may see if I can offer something today. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)