127
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + +
no edit summary
But what counts as "notable"? Why are all the "liberal _____" articles "notable," but an article detailing Conservapedia's editorial practices are not? Please do not dismiss this as a joke; I am asking you a serious question about what determines whether or not a topic is worthy of inclusion. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
But what counts as "notable"? Why are all the "liberal _____" articles "notable," but an article detailing Conservapedia's editorial practices are not? Please do not dismiss this as a joke; I am asking you a serious question about what determines whether or not a topic is worthy of inclusion. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:The "Liberal ______" articles are not encyclopedic, I agree. If you want, go sign that petition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:The "Liberal ______" articles are not encyclopedic, I agree. If you want, go sign that petition. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
In an effort to appease your desire for "encyclopedic content" while at the same time filling what I believe to be a valid need for commentary on Conservapedia's own editorial practices, I would like to create a page about the more general topic of Conservapedia's features and how they are used. I would like to work with you to accomplish this in a way that is agreeable to everyone, yet still portrays the truth. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
== A lesson in irony (Guard Dog) ==
== A lesson in irony (Guard Dog) ==
Second autoblock in just a few hours... XD Thanks for reverting it, and I'm sure that vandal got a good laugh out of it, too :P --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Second autoblock in just a few hours... XD Thanks for reverting it, and I'm sure that vandal got a good laugh out of it, too :P --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)