248
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 586:
Line 586: + + + + + + + +
→Wanted pages: "premarital sex": new section
Thank you for blocking the account you just blocked. I noticed it and guessed it would be safe to assume the worst about anyone going by that name.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Thank you for blocking the account you just blocked. I noticed it and guessed it would be safe to assume the worst about anyone going by that name.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:You are correct. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 16:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:You are correct. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 16:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)
== Wanted pages: "premarital sex" ==
Hi Dean,
I had a question that needed resolution by an administrator. While going through the wanted pages, I stumbled upon "premarital sex," a page that has many links to it. When I tried to start a stub for the page, I noticed that it was "protected" from re-creation. I think that's a mistake. While Conservapedia should be family-friendly, a short article on premarital sex that goes into ''no more detail than needed'' could warn of the risks of this type of conduct, and provide links to abstinence only resources. Therefore, a short article could do more good than harm. If you would like to unprotect it, I could start it, and you could protect it after I was done to ensure that no vandals disturb its message.
Alternately, if the page is truly meant to be left blank, please let me know and I'll go around the site removing any links to the term to get it off the wanted list.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 12:35, 9 December 2008 (EST)