300
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 140:
Line 140: +
no edit summary
: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 unfair 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)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair 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)
:::Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)