Changes

:Conservapedia is not in business to exalt [[anarchism]]. Be warned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Conservapedia is not in business to exalt [[anarchism]]. Be warned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I didn't see anything all that bad with it. In the future, it's best to make several small edits and put a descriptive edit comment in each one. Otherwise the entire edit will be reverted, since most people are too lazy to revert just the offending part. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I didn't see anything all that bad with it. In the future, it's best to make several small edits and put a descriptive edit comment in each one. Otherwise the entire edit will be reverted, since most people are too lazy to revert just the offending part. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:What makes you think i'm a "liberal editor," and for what reason are my edits continually reverted?  The introductory paragraph of an encyclopedic article should explain the topic in general terms, becoming more specific in the following sections.  This article starts naming specific issues straight off the bat, and without citations to support them.  Frankly, it smacks of bias, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Also, i am unclear as to what edits you find questionable. [[User:JBrandonLoberg]]

:What makes you think i'm a "liberal editor," and for what reason are my edits continually reverted?  The introductory paragraph of an encyclopedic article should explain the topic in general terms, becoming more specific in the following sections.  This article starts naming specific issues straight off the bat, and without citations to support them.  Frankly, it smacks of bias, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Also, i am unclear as to what edits you find questionable...[[User:JBrandonLoberg|JBrandonLoberg]] 22:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)