Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bob Lonsberry"
From MormonWiki
(New page: Although the negative comments about Bob Lonsberry may be true, the tone of this update is extremely negative, to the point of sour grapes or a personal vendetta. Either balance this out ...) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Although the negative comments about Bob Lonsberry may be true, the tone of this update is extremely negative, to the point of sour grapes or a personal vendetta. Either balance this out with something positive (so that it becomes more objective in tone), or I'm going to revert the article back to its basic, positive, former self and block you from editing it in the future. [[User:Gboyd|Gboyd]] 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | Although the negative comments about Bob Lonsberry may be true, the tone of this update is extremely negative, to the point of sour grapes or a personal vendetta. Either balance this out with something positive (so that it becomes more objective in tone), or I'm going to revert the article back to its basic, positive, former self and block you from editing it in the future. [[User:Gboyd|Gboyd]] 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I would also make the recommendation to our disgruntled author to add a credible source citation. Then at least we could keep the information and scrap the pointless malevolence. (Which, I would note, we don't need at all.) I added one citation for the information that we already have and, despite searching, failed to find any real support for the information that was added. --[[User:Seanmcox|Seanmcox]] 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sean--Do you have time to fix this? Or should I just keep your citations? The "disgruntled author" has not responded. [[User:Gboyd|Gboyd]] 03:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:54, 17 March 2009
Although the negative comments about Bob Lonsberry may be true, the tone of this update is extremely negative, to the point of sour grapes or a personal vendetta. Either balance this out with something positive (so that it becomes more objective in tone), or I'm going to revert the article back to its basic, positive, former self and block you from editing it in the future. Gboyd 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would also make the recommendation to our disgruntled author to add a credible source citation. Then at least we could keep the information and scrap the pointless malevolence. (Which, I would note, we don't need at all.) I added one citation for the information that we already have and, despite searching, failed to find any real support for the information that was added. --Seanmcox 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Sean--Do you have time to fix this? Or should I just keep your citations? The "disgruntled author" has not responded. Gboyd 03:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
