SkipCaptcha
64
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 504:
Line 504: − + − Conservapedia leans "conservative" or "right-wing", but it's still supposed to be a fairly neutral objective NPOV encyclopedia, and not a POV ''blog'' of hyper-trinitarians, JW-haters, and anti-Witness conspiracy theorists. There are other websites for that nonsense. NOT Conservapedia. So... Yeah, to you, David,...Northwest. The stuff that David added was what anti-Witness conspiracy theorists and "mainstream" biased church theologians PUT IN IN ANTI-JW BLOGS, videos, books, and private websites....not a supposedly objective encyclopedia article. David's statement of "conflicting with the Bible's teachings" is a PURE POV OPINION, having nothing to do with neutral encyclopedic anything. Because other people have the opposite view of what David put in...in that regard. + − + + + + + + + + +
/* Reverts and "Protected" and false charges of "harassment" when it's communication and engagement as RECOMMENDED BY POLICY
== Reverts and "Protected" ==
== Reverts and "Protected" ==
Hello. Why exactly did you revert me before putting that protection on that JW article, when my reverts were the justified ones? It was obvious POV-PUSHING and opinion and blog bias that was put walls of text by "David" a few months ago. So what was the reason you rudely undid my (necessary) undo, before doing what you did?
Hello. So engaging in discussion is "harassing" to you? Isn't that was is recommended and the policy? Communication? And engagement? Even if blunt? You removed my section on Northwest's talk page, and then did what you did. You obviosly have njo credibility...so it's irrelevant at this point. But I'm curious.... (And I know you'll probably just dodge and delete...like a rude juvenile no-answer schmuck...as you've proven what type of person and editor you are already...) But I am curious....
Why exactly did you revert me before putting that protection on that JW article, when my reverts were the justified ones? It was obvious POV-PUSHING and opinion and blog bias that was put walls of text by "David" a few months ago. So what was the reason you rudely undid my (necessary) undo, before doing what you did?
It doesn't matter how many contributions and edits you, or Northwest, or David has made on this site. David put in ANTI-WITNESS hateful neurotic BLOG JUNK, not professional neutral material, in those walls of texts there. And you and Northwest wrongly upheld that POV wording, tone, and nonsense. Why exactly? So then fix wording to make it more neutral and not what "conservapedia" itself thinks. Regards... [[User:Summa Verbius|Summa Verbius]] ([[User talk:Summa Verbius|talk]]) 00:08, 22 May 2021 (EDT)
Conservapedia leans "conservative" or "right-wing", but it's still supposed to be a fairly neutral objective NPOV encyclopedia, and not a POV ''blog'' of hyper-trinitarians, JW-haters, and anti-Witness conspiracy theorists. There are other websites for that nonsense. NOT Conservapedia. So... Yeah, to you, David,...Northwest. The stuff that David added was what anti-Witness conspiracy theorists and "mainstream" biased church theologians PUT IN IN ANTI-JW BLOGS, videos, books, and private websites....not a supposedly objective encyclopedia article.
David's statement of "conflicting with the Bible's teachings" is a PURE POV OPINION, having nothing to do with neutral encyclopedic anything. Because other people have the opposite view of what David put in...in that regard.
It doesn't matter how many contributions and edits you, or Northwest, or David has made on this site.
An editor on this thing may have hundreds of thousands of edits, hundreds of GAs, FAs, dozens of barnstars and a legion of friends-and-relations; DOESN'T MATTER....because, disruption is disruption, POV is POV, and tendentious malicious mendacious editing is tendentious malicious mendacious editing,no matter how does it.
David put in ANTI-WITNESS hateful neurotic BLOG JUNK, not professional neutral material, in those walls of texts there. And you and Northwest wrongly upheld that POV wording, tone, and nonsense. Why exactly? So then fix wording to make it more neutral and not what "conservapedia" itself thinks. Regards... [[User:Summa Verbius|Summa Verbius]] ([[User talk:Summa Verbius|talk]]) 00:08, 22 May 2021 (EDT)