Talk:Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Red links

I was thinking that since those liberal vandals listed no longer have user pages or talk pages that instead in linking them (pointless, as the links lead to basically nowhere) we could put them in bold instead??? Just a thought. --AmeliaJ 18:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --DeanStalk 18:24, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I also agree very much. Great idea. User:AddisonDM 7 January 2009

This page should be deleted.

The very existence of this page encourages vandalism. It becomes a motive for people to commit vandalism. --Tim TalkFormerly CPAdmin1 21:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

How so? JY23 13:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Cause it's funny to read what some people have wrote. It's like reading bash.org conversations. JonGTennisu no Boifriendo 19:56, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
In the end, I don't think it matters. It's better if we do get a slight increase in vandalism, and be able to show everyone the utter moronic nature of it, like this essay is meant to do. It is very important that the average reader actually see the kind of junk these vandals post. AddisonDM 20:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Colbert vandals

Should we mention something about the recent Colbert-inspired vandalism? --OscarJ 14:19, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Warning?

Ok, it's just minor as the abuse and vulgarity could be worse, but maybe you should put a minor warning at the beginning of the article stating that the examples contain profanity and general unpleasantness. Just to be on the safe side :) --Leo-from-UK 15:22, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Maybe a warning template like:
Warning!

This page may contain materiel that may be considered offensive to certain audiences, including, but not limited to profanity, vulgarity, etc. Please exercise discretion.


Conservapedia is not responsible for any effects this article may induce.

JonM 15:10, 21 December 2011 (EST)

"Conservapedia is not responsible for any effects this article may induce." Not taking responsibility for the effects of one's actions =/= conservative. ScottDG 16:29, 21 December 2011 (EST)
True, but then again, this isnt conservapedia's fault anyways, it is the vandal's fault for inserting obscenity.JonM 00:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

This page has telling examples of vandalism

Has this page been written by vandals, proud of their own jokes ? It looks so...--PhilipN 16:56, 21 December 2011 (EST)

I can only imagine so. Nothing would be more validating WilcoxD 17:10, 21 December 2011 (EST)
Providing examples of vandalism illustrates how intolerant it is. Vandalism is often nothing more than a crude attempt at censorship.--Andy Schlafly 23:24, 21 December 2011 (EST)
That's actually an interesting insight, Mr. Schlafly. As I have noted earlier, I have never seen an example of conservatives vandalizing a wiki (whether here or Wikipedia). It cannot be a coincidence that censorship, which also regards the defacement of information, is also found universally with liberals. NickP 00:21, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Personal tools