1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + +
→Conservapedia Protocol: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless
I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]
I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]
: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)