4,542
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 185:
Line 185: +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 23:32, April 5, 2007
, 23:32, April 5, 2007→This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)