Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal redefinition"
From Conservapedia
LeaningRight (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I second that. Without explanations, this article is meaningless.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 00:11, 25 February 2008 (EST) | :I second that. Without explanations, this article is meaningless.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 00:11, 25 February 2008 (EST) | ||
After trudging through the liberal articles, I think the 90/10 rule should be modified to ban these ever present articles. Angband 14:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT) | After trudging through the liberal articles, I think the 90/10 rule should be modified to ban these ever present articles. Angband 14:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :I second that. Have a look at some of the articles I made earlier today. Perhaps some users would be better spent making an encyclopedia rather than making a fool of themselves with whiny articles like this. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 14:07, 24 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
=== Category === | === Category === | ||
Revision as of 18:07, March 24, 2008
Should we put a little description next to each term, so that we know how they are being redefined? HelpJazz 23:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)
- Rainbow? I'm confused. I reiterate my request: instead of a list, could we provide some explanation? HelpJazz 18:41, 24 February 2008 (EST)
- I second that. Without explanations, this article is meaningless.--Frey 00:11, 25 February 2008 (EST)
After trudging through the liberal articles, I think the 90/10 rule should be modified to ban these ever present articles. Angband 14:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
- I second that. Have a look at some of the articles I made earlier today. Perhaps some users would be better spent making an encyclopedia rather than making a fool of themselves with whiny articles like this. LeaningRight 14:07, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
Category
Hey, whats wrong with Category:Liberals? Maupiti 09:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
