Talk:Ned Lamont: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Reverted good faith edits by 75.130.91.73 (talk): -chat, see history of IP's talk page. (TW) |
get a life |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{WikiProject Connecticut|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject Connecticut|class=GA|importance=Mid}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
What happened to the discussion that was wiped out? I commented on this sudden erasure and some nameless person threatened me. If remember right I suggested that who ever took down all the back and forth comments was sick of losing the argument so he or she hit the nuclear button. Wikipedia was a nice idea but there seems to be bitter liberal partisans who just will not accept there might be two sides to an issue. Get a life whoever you are. --[[Special:Contributions/75.130.91.73|75.130.91.73]] ([[User talk:75.130.91.73|talk]]) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:26, 2 June 2018
Ned Lamont has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 5, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
Ned Lamont received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ned Lamont article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
What happened to the discussion that was wiped out? I commented on this sudden erasure and some nameless person threatened me. If remember right I suggested that who ever took down all the back and forth comments was sick of losing the argument so he or she hit the nuclear button. Wikipedia was a nice idea but there seems to be bitter liberal partisans who just will not accept there might be two sides to an issue. Get a life whoever you are. --75.130.91.73 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)