User talk:Lucid6191

Ok, from a neutral POV, why is it important for an encyclopedia to take a stance on a polarizing issue? Just because there are opinion pieces out there doesn't mean they belong within encyclopedic content. Whether it was a good call or not, the part I'm removing states "defended by sportswriters" but only cites one. The same exact content is quoted in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl page, but it cites a second article, which calls dissenters idiots, morons, numbskull crybabies and dumb among other things. This can't be taken seriously. It should not be the duty of these articles to take a stance whether or not this call was a good one. ObiWan353 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia  as a result of your . You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Metros (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)