Difference between revisions of "Talk:EvoWiki"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(ScientificAustralian's reversion) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Hypocrisy reigns supreme. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | Hypocrisy reigns supreme. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == ScientificAustralian's reversion == | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[user:ScientificAustralian|ScientificAustralian]] just reverted my previous edit, with the comment, "''why put stuff about creation wiki on the evo wiki page''". | ||
| + | |||
| + | To answer that question, because CreationWiki's responses to ''EvoWiki's claims'' are relevant to an article about EvoWiki. | ||
| + | |||
| + | And I would ask a question in return: Why revert my entire edit simply because you disagree with one part of it? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:19, November 3, 2007
Pot calls kettle black
The article states:
- "EvoWiki is an evolutionist website that claims to be free, but only allows pro-evolution edits".
Have you noticed, by any chance, that the "Theory of Evolution" page at Conservapedia is locked? And that it is actually an "Anti-Theory of Evolution" page?
Hypocrisy reigns supreme. --Horace 22:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
ScientificAustralian's reversion
ScientificAustralian just reverted my previous edit, with the comment, "why put stuff about creation wiki on the evo wiki page".
To answer that question, because CreationWiki's responses to EvoWiki's claims are relevant to an article about EvoWiki.
And I would ask a question in return: Why revert my entire edit simply because you disagree with one part of it?
Philip J. Rayment 22:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT)