83
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 429:
Line 429: + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 04:36, March 17, 2007
, 04:36, March 17, 2007→Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article.
Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.
On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==
== Poll on Proposed Copyright Policy ==