Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 321:
Line 321: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:00, July 17, 2007
, 02:00, July 17, 2007→Take a step back
It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boss1000 here]. - [[User:Boss1000|Boss1000]] 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.
:In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. ''As the histories will show'', Boss Man, if you care to look.
:And in ''other'' point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about ''that'', mate.
:So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!
:And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)