Revision as of 18:51, 10 January 2008 edit Wasted Time R (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 74,001 edits →‎"was" in lead ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:19, 10 January 2008 edit undo Ricxster (talk \| contribs) 99 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 661: ::OK, I've not a problem with it either way. [[User:GoodDay\|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay\|talk]]) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC) :::The delegate count lead isn't especially significant yet; her lead is due to having more superdelegates and does not reflect more or less popular support. After [[Super Duper Tuesday]], the delegate lead will become very significant. [[User:Wasted Time R\|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R\|talk]]) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) "Was" shouldnt be in - its is redundant - the sentence means the same things regardless. Wikipedia should endeavour to present efficient, logical and coherent articles - having something in that isnt needed reeks of illogic and agenda. I would also call into question the fact that Obama features in Clinton's lede when there is no mention of her in his. [[User:Ricxster\|Ricxster]] ([[User talk:Ricxster\|talk]]) 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton: Difference between revisions