User talk:70.61.23.238: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Reading through the content you removed, I don't really see how it duplicates content already present in the sections that you didn't attempt to remove.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]][[User:Digitalme/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">c</span>]])</sup></strong> 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
Reading through the content you removed, I don't really see how it duplicates content already present in the sections that you didn't attempt to remove.--<strong>[[User:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">digital_m</span>]][[User:Digitalme/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">t</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Digitalme|<span style="color:#000;">c</span>]])</sup></strong> 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
Can you please explain here why you think that there is a POV problem with the comments regarding the Atlanta and Ohio TRO decisions? It is clear from the court's docket the TRO in Georgia was extended BY CONSENT of the parties --- do I need to link to that to convince you?? Also, if you bother to actually read the Ohio TRO decision you will see that the bracketed portion paraphrases 4 pages of the court's analysis explaining why there is "no substantial liklihood of sucess" on the 1st Amendment claims and thus, why the TRO was denied.... |
Can you please explain here why you think that there is a POV problem with the comments regarding the Atlanta and Ohio TRO decisions? It is clear from the court's docket the TRO in Georgia was extended BY CONSENT of the parties --- do I need to link to that to convince you?? Also, if you bother to actually read the Ohio TRO decision you will see that the bracketed portion paraphrases 4 pages of the court's analysis explaining why there is "no substantial liklihood of sucess" on the 1st Amendment claims and thus, why the TRO was denied.... |
||
[[User:68.33.186.81|68.33.186.81]] 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:24, 30 May 2006
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --digital_me(t/c) 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: changes made to Mail Order Bride
Reading through the content you removed, I don't really see how it duplicates content already present in the sections that you didn't attempt to remove.--digital_me(t/c) 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please explain here why you think that there is a POV problem with the comments regarding the Atlanta and Ohio TRO decisions? It is clear from the court's docket the TRO in Georgia was extended BY CONSENT of the parties --- do I need to link to that to convince you?? Also, if you bother to actually read the Ohio TRO decision you will see that the bracketed portion paraphrases 4 pages of the court's analysis explaining why there is "no substantial liklihood of sucess" on the 1st Amendment claims and thus, why the TRO was denied.... 68.33.186.81 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)