talkie talkie造句

• :: Given no response on the WP : OR policy issue, also brought to talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 14 : 02, 20 June 2013 ( UTC)
• Plus the quote and the " Concieved in Liberty " newer examples and show ongoing problem . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 15 : 39, 31 May 2013 ( UTC)
• Sometimes you read things but given others objections think, well, maybe they're right anyway . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 15 : 55, 19 June 2013 ( UTC)
• Or maybe titulating speculation about subjects of BLP is allowed and I'm too strict on policy ? ? " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 21 : 52, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• And this is just the last few days . I could include another 25 questionable edits for last 5 weeks . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 15 : 22, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• :: Given there's still no response on WP : BLPN on the WP : OR policy issue, also brought to talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 14 : 06, 20 June 2013 ( UTC)
• At the very least, I would like to see a recommendation that this RfC be voided because of the canvassing . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 01 : 30, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• It's even worse than what I've seen in BLP's on the Israel-Palestine issue, and that's saying a lot ! " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 16 : 50, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• :: Sorry for my ignorance, I didn't read japanese, so after check several english links, I found no serious english websites, news agency or academic journals .-- Talkie talkie ) 20 : 23, 27 June 2007 ( UTC)
• Obviously, secondary sources also have to be used, but at least it gives us an overview as to his being a " real academic " . :-) " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 18 : 55, 20 May 2013 ( UTC)
• But the hostility is started by people who with great hostility announced their intention to work together, to collaborate as " colleagues " to trash a bunch of people . . . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 11 : 30, 1 June 2013 ( UTC)
• A general opinion that I could refer another editor to is all I really want and mad at self didn't realize that phrasing it that way would have been good enough . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 16 : 17, 31 May 2013 ( UTC)
• A bit silly but now that Iran's changed it's whole policy . . . ha ha . . . but seriously, more than enough refs on notability for us inclusionists . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 11 : 57, 1 June 2013 ( UTC)
• I'd say it's at least on par with Huffington Post, though there may be reasons individual authors postings might not be allowed on some articles on a case by case basis . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 15 : 12, 29 May 2013 ( UTC)
• Highlighted specific request at end . ( Sorry to bring two WP : ANIs in 24 hours, but as others have observed, the disruptions in this article are reverberating all over Wikipedia ! ) Thanks . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 14 : 22, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• "Request : " The editor obviously needs strong mentoring and perhaps a ban from editing this article ( and other related BLPs that might grab his / her attention ) until s / he is willing to abide by policy and end the disruptive editing of biographies . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 13 : 24, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• If there's something really important that needs mentioning sometimes you also can use the document as a primary source-but this is where your interpreting what's important and making a whole summary or paragraph based on that instead of the secondary source can run into WP : OR . talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 18 : 23, 4 June 2013 ( UTC)
• Also, some might question using his article, even if published by LewRockwell . com and Mises . org, to make claims about another person, especially if some might see them as negative . ( Since he's supposed to be so anti-homosexual especially . ) But that's another issue . " talkie talkie & # x1f5fd; 16 : 40, 27 May 2013 ( UTC)
• :: : What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind, but not in the reference or anyother source, wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research, Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR, And for the american number, in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is "'Pantagon estimate "'. If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate, you can just keep it, but if you can't provide the source, the removal of it will be in agreement with the Wikipedia : Verifiability-- Talkie talkie ) 18 : 27, 26 June 2007 ( UTC)