SkipCaptcha
3,261
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 159:
Line 159: + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 21:44, September 4, 2012
, 21:44, September 4, 2012→Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule: reply
::::::There is no policy or statement on the site that I know of that says "only Creationist views are allowed here and you get banned for opposing views". I don't know why you think he should've known that, and don't assume good faith about his intentions. It's highly necessary to change site guidelines so people at least know that these are the rules here, because otherwise banning like this for such comments is unjustifiable. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 17:33, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::There is no policy or statement on the site that I know of that says "only Creationist views are allowed here and you get banned for opposing views". I don't know why you think he should've known that, and don't assume good faith about his intentions. It's highly necessary to change site guidelines so people at least know that these are the rules here, because otherwise banning like this for such comments is unjustifiable. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 17:33, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::::He knew full well. Liberals have often bickered about lack of "tolerance" of evolutionary POV and about Barack Hussein Obama's middle name being used in the article title. He knew and was intentionally trolling. If you do not realize this, I will not try to explain this point further. Look at the name of the site: Conservapedia. If evolution is what he wants, evolution is what he will get on [[Wikipedia]]. He can go there to spout those talking points he calls "science". He wouldn't have reverted me or Senior Sysop User:Ed Poor if he didn't know he was in the wrong. "Assume good faith" stuff is malarkey on Wikipedia; editors are recognized by their contributions in making this a trustworthy encyclopedia. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:44, 4 September 2012 (EDT)