Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,629
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
Conservapedia talk:Attribution (view source)
Revision as of 17:04, April 24, 2007
, 17:04, April 24, 2007→I think if you look at Rob's protection or torture you'll see what he means: What happened
::I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm simply referring to that simplistic example with Eminem. You present it as fact, yet deny that it is just your POV. That seems intellectually dishonest to me. I suggest people look at it when considering the veracity of your other edits. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Maybe I'm in violation of WP:POINT, but the POINT is, the Eminem cite is about the '''only''' properly qualified cite from that article, and infact it the ''ABC News'' article has deeply problematic vulnerabilities, nonetheleast of which is a question of [[journalistic ethics]] of ''both'' the authors and the editors of ''ABC News''. Yet that cite, and a few others, are already scattered throughout CP. I'm not saying it can't be used, I am saying the ''ABC News'' article was used improperly, and the cite I made to it was factual and and improvement over what had been represented out of that cite. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)