| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Deleting the talk page was a good start. Now you should delete the article too. It's kind of embarrassing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:45, 27 January 2012 (EST) | + | <nowiki>Deleting the talk page was a good start. Now you should delete the article too. It's kind of embarrassing. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 02:45, 27 January 2012 (EST) |
| | :Yes, it is embarrassing for liberal atheists - especially the [[Soviet Union]] section. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:05, 27 January 2012 (EST) | | :Yes, it is embarrassing for liberal atheists - especially the [[Soviet Union]] section. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:05, 27 January 2012 (EST) |
| | ::This has been bugging me for a while, so I'm finally going to ask it... Why are you wasting your time creating these pointless essays? I know your overall contribution to this site is genuine and meaningful, but this constant stream of pointless essays on atheism comes across as petty and I can't help but think that they are there simply for provocation. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:06, 27 January 2012 (GMT) | | ::This has been bugging me for a while, so I'm finally going to ask it... Why are you wasting your time creating these pointless essays? I know your overall contribution to this site is genuine and meaningful, but this constant stream of pointless essays on atheism comes across as petty and I can't help but think that they are there simply for provocation. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:06, 27 January 2012 (GMT) |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | :::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST) | | :::The Britannica is a British publication, and they are a nation of obese atheists. Hardly the standard to which we should aspire. Why? Because liberals. That's why. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] [[User talk:ScottDG|Talk]] <b>Is Gingrich an orphan? Conservapedia says yes. Why does nobody else? </b> 10:38, 27 January 2012 (EST) |
| | ::::Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST) | | ::::Or then again, maybe not every book or website ending in -pedia has to have the same policies just because they have -pedia in the name. Could people please try to be a bit more open-minded?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:46, 27 January 2012 (EST) |
| − | :::::I would be perfectly happy to see well thought-out, well written and informative essays put up on this encyclodpedia. But as I stated previously, these essays are nothing more than petty, provocative ramblings. In my mind it's more like vandalism than worthwhile editing. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:51, 27 January 2012 (GMT) | + | :::::I would be perfectly happy to see well thought-out, well written and informative essays put up on this encyclodpedia. But as I stated previously, these essays are nothing more than petty, provocative ramblings. In my mind it's more like vandalism than worthwhile editing. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 15:51, 27 January 2012 (GMT)</nowiki> |