Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 766: Line 766:     
: It was there all of nine days, as one can easily see from the history.  That is not "along [sic] time".  It's nothing more than vandalism of the Wikipedia redirect.  And AlanS is right: you ''could'' have fixed it.  That you ''choose'' not to doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 
: It was there all of nine days, as one can easily see from the history.  That is not "along [sic] time".  It's nothing more than vandalism of the Wikipedia redirect.  And AlanS is right: you ''could'' have fixed it.  That you ''choose'' not to doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: We've discussed how Wikipedia will leave up some "vandalism", while reverting others.  It's an example of Wikipedia's bias how some vandalism will remain while others are reverted immediately.  You can bet many editors saw that edit during the nine days it remained, and left it there.  It's irrelevant whether an outsider could have reverted it; the point here is to illustrate the bias of the editors who run Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,500

edits

Navigation menu