SkipCaptcha
64
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 335:
Line 335: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Engagement and communication is NOT "harassment"...even if thin-skinned whiny types don't like it: new section
Don't worry. You don't have edit war with [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Northwest&diff=next&oldid=1758240 the guy harassing you.] I reverted to [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&curid=24281&action=history your version] and locked the page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:55, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
Don't worry. You don't have edit war with [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Northwest&diff=next&oldid=1758240 the guy harassing you.] I reverted to [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&curid=24281&action=history your version] and locked the page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 23:55, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
== Engagement and communication is NOT "harassment"...even if thin-skinned whiny types don't like it ==
So engaging in discussion is "harassing" to you? Isn't that was is recommended and the policy? Communication? And engagement? Even if blunt? I was straightforward in my previous attempt, but not "harassing". But now I don't care anymore. Respect is earned, and you've earned zero now, but the opposition. You just DODGED everything I wrote, the facts, and points I was making, and never engaged, but erased and then the other editor (another one with no objectivity or credibility) backed your idiocy and insanity up. Birds of a feather...lol. I'm being insulting now more so because RESPECT IS EARNED, and you've earned zero of it, by your initial actions, and your actions subsequent. You little weasel and pagan wimp. (And I know you'll probably just dodge and delete...like a rude juvenile no-answer evasive schmuck...as you've proven what type of person and editor you are already...) But I am curious....
Why exactly did you revert me when my revert was the justified one? 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?
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 who 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...
(I know that you'll DODGE AND DELETE like you did before, further confirming what a flop and failure you and those enable your POV idiocy are.) Conservapedia and Wikipedia and Rational Wiki are just BLOGS in many ways with various articles...at this point, when it comes to religious, philosophical, theological, or political articles. [[User:Summa Verbius|Summa Verbius]] ([[User talk:Summa Verbius|talk]]) 00:26, 22 May 2021 (EDT)