154
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + +
→You can wait
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter '''not one other editor''' has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
==Editing==
Hello. You should, by now, understand that the POV of, say, [[Hollywood values]] is to denigrate the motion picture and television industries. Adding films that show that Hollywood ''at least'' recognizes how to make a movie that has strong [[conservative values]], might make a reader think that there is some redeeming value in Hollywood and its value system. Since we know this '''cannot''' be the case, (after all, something is ''either'' '''all good''' or '''all bad'''), the edits you made were outside the scope of the POV. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 16:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)