| Revision as of 07:25, 26 February 2009 edit68.183.246.93 (talk) Undid revision 273362013 by I-210 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:44, 26 February 2009 edit undoThreeafterthree (talk | contribs)21,164 edits not a forumNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== Olbermann piece == | ||
| No way. Sorry, it's just not that big a deal. Olbermann (like a lot of other folks) despises Goldberg and points out some of his frequent malpractices; that's not exactly encyclopedic news. --] | ] 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] is a '''disgrace''' as an admin. This person should '''resign''' the responsiblities that he has repeatedly demonstrated he is clearly ''too irresponsible'' to hold. He is also a flack for the pathetic and two-faced ] - unfortunately both are too cowardly to admit this when confronted. '''End of story.''' ] (]) 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :There's not enough room in[REDACTED] to mention every time a talking head criticizes another talking head; that's a classic case of ], already a problem with articles about ideologues. --] | ] 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both; doesn't change my opinion. --] | ] 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's part of the neutral point of view thing. We've got some good sample criticisms of Goldberg, sourced to varying critics. That's enough. For one thing, you run the risk of making it sound like Olbermann and MSNBC have a personal vendetta against Goldberg, rather than that most sane people think he's a crank. --] | ] 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User notice: temporary 3RR block == | |||
| <div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> | |||
| ==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]== | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:|] (]) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] (]) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)</div> | |||
Revision as of 16:44, 26 February 2009
Olbermann piece
No way. Sorry, it's just not that big a deal. Olbermann (like a lot of other folks) despises Goldberg and points out some of his frequent malpractices; that's not exactly encyclopedic news. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's not enough room in[REDACTED] to mention every time a talking head criticizes another talking head; that's a classic case of undue emphasis, already a problem with articles about ideologues. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both; doesn't change my opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's part of the neutral point of view thing. We've got some good sample criticisms of Goldberg, sourced to varying critics. That's enough. For one thing, you run the risk of making it sound like Olbermann and MSNBC have a personal vendetta against Goldberg, rather than that most sane people think he's a crank. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both; doesn't change my opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on February 22 2009 to Bernard Goldberg
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)