Jump to content

User talk:CTF83!

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 6afraidof7 (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 20 November 2008 (→‎6afraidof). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In case you didn't notice the message on my talk page

Hello, CTF83!. You have new messages at Philosopher's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)[reply]

Davenport

Sure, no problem. I hope they can help (though if there are questions they can't answer, I won't hold it against you). -- Biruitorul Talk 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I looked at the FAC today and saw that you mentioned you had left comments on my talk page. I honestly did not see them - it looks like after you posted every time someone else put a new comment at the bottom and I assumed the yellow bar was for the other person's comment. Sorry!!! To answer your question, as much of the article as possible should be sourced to secondary sources. You need to find magazine or newspaper articles (or books) that discuss some of these sections of the article, and pick out what the magazines think is important. All claims of importance/notability need to be sourced to a secondary source (for example, "American Nurses Credentialing Center, the nation’s leading credentialing organization" should NOT be sourced to the ANCC itself). The article shoud not source an entire section (such as festivals) to a series of primary sources - that is potential OR because then you are choosing which festivals are important, rather than letting secondary sources determine which ones should be mentioned. In general, the sourcing needs a complete overhaul. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if the State Supreme Court does not rule on Prop H8 Wednesday (the earliest they would rule on it), should we put that the legality of the ban is questionable within the template? Also do you know anyone with SVG image editing abilities that can modify Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to indicate the legality of prop 8 is in question? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yup, paying special care to avoid that and ready to report a 3RR on the dissenter (who has technically already violated it). Thanks for watchin my back! =) DP76764 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6afraidof7

Are you the person whose been deleting my Meg Griffin edit? --6afraidof7 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]