User talk:Sugarcubez

Talk archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dick

Yeah, but saying that Dick has said some anti-Christian remarks is too, kind've. He hasn't, he has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House. Don't you think Jameka (a Christian) calling Dick's, Christian, ordained minister, mom a bitch, contrast? I would. Maybe I wouldn't have said complete, but I didn't put that there. How is that stereotyping, stereotyping is, for example:

• skinny, tall girl = model.
• guy with glasses = nerd.
• blonde = stupid.

etc. Anti-Christian remarks is too harsh, and I don't think he has. He has made some negative remarks to other HouseGuests because of their contrast to their behavior in the House.

Anyway, there is already a topic about this above where you posted a talk topic about Dick, which is why I keep changing it, please read it. Melanie 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. But I will remove the anti-discrimination but there would be no attacking of one beliefs saying how you assume to know that person saying how their action contrast with their belief, you don't know them and they have not openly stated their exact beliefs just one so far I know believes in God and Jesus and the other believes in God, nothing further has been said unless you can give me proof of this, remove that part. So please try and refrain from doing so, thank you.--Sugarcubez 02:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, contrast much be included, otherwise it will be misleading. I meant that it's too harsh in the first sentence, referring to what you had said. Stop changing the contrast part. He only did it because of their behavior. Melanie 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove sources

Please do not remove sourced content as you just did at the article Vegetarianism. The source (Molecular Nutrition) says exactly what it was cited. If you have some information that challenges a source, it is always better to post a comment at the article's talk page TopTopView 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Zoë Saldaña

For clarity, did you misread my summary? I removed the qualifier "black" as I believe(d) it to be irrelevant to the article. Judging by your summary, I believe you concur...? If there is a compelling rationale for restoration, then reinsert it. SoLando (Talk) 09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at your page.--Sugarcubez 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Without making an erroneous inference, I must state that the language you have employed in your response is potentially inflammatory, ill-advised and misplaced. But I digress and have no wish for an easily preventable misunderstanding to arise. For clarity: the qualifier "black" was/is present in the lead, which I believe(d) to be irrelevant unless it is given context. There was/is no context. Specify her heritage, yes, but in the main body (i.e. "Personal life" section). No one is attempting to "deny" her "race", to claim so is surely fallacy. Compare Zoë Saldaña with Condoleeza Rice, Barack Obama, and Colin Powell. There is an explicit context for inclusion evident in those articles. Now would you be supportive of incorporation into the aforementioned "Personal life" section? Please review WP:MoS#Identity and WP:NAMES, which are pertinent to this discussion. Regards. SoLando (Talk) 21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)