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 73:
Line 73: + +
Conservapedia talk:Attribution (view source)
Revision as of 18:49, April 24, 2007
, 18:49, April 24, 2007→I think if you look at Rob's protection or torture you'll see what he means: process
Okay, but that's a junk you know. The point was Eminem, as presented, is a form of torture. That's dumb. Just because someone said it does not make it valid fodder for this site. Otherwise, you are arguing that to listen to Eminem music is torture. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, but that's a junk you know. The point was Eminem, as presented, is a form of torture. That's dumb. Just because someone said it does not make it valid fodder for this site. Otherwise, you are arguing that to listen to Eminem music is torture. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:So that specific reference may not stand. One reason it was done is because there is some valuable information in the Ross & Espisito ''ABC News'' article, which I did not wish to remove completely (as was done with most of the uk cites). I'm still reviewing all the other abuses that occured in this series of articles, trying to salvage what useful and valuable information and cites are there, and do rewrites where if I can. But most importantly we need a guideline on anonymous sources -- this junk was in for a month after the vandal had been blocked. A guideline would have helped catch it much sooner, and some of the cites removed could still be saved. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)