Changes

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here.  While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I understand your frustration, but we don't edit war here.  While I would like to see your information reinstated and looked at in more detail by those who have more intimate knowledge of the Mormon faith, you must also understand that it's not vandalism to remove it and it wasn't wise to put that in the title line. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on ‘‘‘what’’’ is done, rather ‘‘‘who’’’ does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oh, but it was vandalism. Lets be honest here. If I went to another page, lets say the [[Atheism]] page or something on [[Liberals]], and I went to a section that was completely factual, fully sourced and perfectly relevant, and I just removed it without any good basis. What would that be called? Vandalism! So of course it was vandalism if it’s done here. Oh, but I forgot, we don’t look at it that way. Vandalism is not based on '''what''' is done, rather '''who''' does it. If someone else removes perfectly factual, relevant, and sourced material, it’s vandalism. But if an admin does it, then it’s “constructive editing”. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:19, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment.  Could you please unlock the atheism page?  Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate.  Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, a wonderful sentiment.  Could you please unlock the atheism page?  Apparently, finding quotes of various historic figures and attributing them to the entirety of a group is not appropriate.  Likewise, contributions from someone who is familiar with the subject matter rather than someone who has an axe to grind (so to speak) would go a long ways to moving articles from being hatchet jobs (pun intended) to something isn't completely one sided. Above, there was the comment of "Claims by outsiders about a church's doctrine are inherently unreliable," - that is assuming, of course, that atheism is a religion. I understand that Conservapeida wishes to be a source of knowledge, but when articles are so one obviously one sided it leaves people looking for information other sites that may not be in agreement with Conservapedia. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)