Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Removed "while in office" from the Clinton example because that's when impeachment takes place. If the person reaches the end of their term they cannot be impeached. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 11:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | Removed "while in office" from the Clinton example because that's when impeachment takes place. If the person reaches the end of their term they cannot be impeached. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 11:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
:Heh... I was actually just copying something we had on the CLinton page, but good catch. And glad to see someone is reading this! [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | :Heh... I was actually just copying something we had on the CLinton page, but good catch. And glad to see someone is reading this! [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Non-gossip scandals vrs. gossip== | ||
| + | Can someone please clarify what the difference between “non-gossip scandals the person is known to have been involved with” and “Gossip” is. I thought that any scandal that the political figure had been involved in that they had admitted to involvement in would clearly qualify – I am told that is not correct (which is fine, but it makes knowing when I am editing in accordance to the guidelines and when I am unintentionally violating them hard to do.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:59, March 31, 2007
Removed "while in office" from the Clinton example because that's when impeachment takes place. If the person reaches the end of their term they cannot be impeached. --Crackertalk 11:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Heh... I was actually just copying something we had on the CLinton page, but good catch. And glad to see someone is reading this! Myk 15:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Non-gossip scandals vrs. gossip
Can someone please clarify what the difference between “non-gossip scandals the person is known to have been involved with” and “Gossip” is. I thought that any scandal that the political figure had been involved in that they had admitted to involvement in would clearly qualify – I am told that is not correct (which is fine, but it makes knowing when I am editing in accordance to the guidelines and when I am unintentionally violating them hard to do.)--Reginod 10:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)