nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 139:
Line 139: +
→Kitzmiller edit
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it intellectually dishonest that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)