From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What the hell?! Everwill 15:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

It’s not vandalism, its true, and well sourced. One of the largest protests of the Vietnam War included an attempt to levitate and exorcize the Pentagon—I think that is an interesting part of the building’s history so I added it to the article—in the future, please do not delete properly sourced information without at least looking at the references. It may be odd, and I’d be open to listening to an argument for why it doesn’t belong here (but it is factual, concise, clean, family friendly, historically accurate, true and verifiable so it seems to met the sites rules) but it is most certainly NOT vandalism.--Reginod 16:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Concise? I don't think so. That takes up 3/4 of the article. MountainDew 16:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I understood the commandment to be concise to mean that one ought to say what one had to say in as few words as possible, not that one subject shouldn’t take up too much of the article (especially when it was a stub that needed filling out). Was I mistaken in believing this? Or did you simply feel I was too verbose? --Reginod 17:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I suggest a division of the article into (1) the geometric figure and (2) the big office building. --Ed Poor 17:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Second. MountainDew 17:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

A third section for the cricket team?Sterile 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


This page is effectively a disambiguation page. Could a sysop please move it there? Then there will be a better basis for people to write about pentagrams when the new pages are created for each type. Cheers! MatteeNeutra 12:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I added a link to pentagram. --Ed Poor 13:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Errmm, I'm not sure if you understood. If this page is put on "Pentagon (Disambiguation)", then we can create pages for "Pentagon (Shape)" and "Pentagon (US Building)" Or something like that, to make navigation and understanding easier! Unfortunately only Sysops can move pages now! MatteeNeutra 13:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
I feel fortunate. :-) We need not adopt all of Wikipedia's conventions. Some people there seem to delight in making things complicated. I prefer to simplify.
Where is the ambiguity? --Ed Poor 15:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)