Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jeffsang"
From Conservapedia
Puellanivis (Talk | contribs) (not sarcastic at all, the site is obviously leftist, and contrary to the bible. Plus, non-American) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::Sorry, I clarify, the source is a liberal non-American site from a "science" foundation. Such material that contradicts the Bible is inappropriate for CP. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:58, 19 December 2007 (EST) | :::Sorry, I clarify, the source is a liberal non-American site from a "science" foundation. Such material that contradicts the Bible is inappropriate for CP. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:58, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::The edit in question was this: "The banana's useful design is seen by some as offering evidence of an [[intelligent design]]er.<ref>http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html</ref> ''Evolutionists point out that the banana did indeed have an intelligent designer, man, who cultivated..."'' (his edit in italics). I found it to be a mild mockery of the article. It could have been written a bit better than that, such as "evolutionists believe that the banana was cultivated by man some ten thousand years ago...", and I would encourage him to do so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Non-American has nothing to do with the Bible. Are you a parodist? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:07, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm suspicious as well, Dan... .according to the [[conservapedia:guidelines|guidelines]], there's nothing wrong with "non-American" sources (which this wasn't) or sources which "contradict the Bible" (which this doesn't really), so long as they are properly attributed (which the statement was). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:13, 19 December 2007 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:13, December 19, 2007
Sarcastic or silly edits will result in a removal from the site. Please refrain from doing so. Karajou 14:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- While reviewing his edit, it was in complete earnest, and not a sarcastic or silly edit, quoting a liberal source as a reference should simply be not allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puellanivis (talk)
- Sorry, I clarify, the source is a liberal non-American site from a "science" foundation. Such material that contradicts the Bible is inappropriate for CP. --Puellanivis 14:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- The edit in question was this: "The banana's useful design is seen by some as offering evidence of an intelligent designer.[1] Evolutionists point out that the banana did indeed have an intelligent designer, man, who cultivated..." (his edit in italics). I found it to be a mild mockery of the article. It could have been written a bit better than that, such as "evolutionists believe that the banana was cultivated by man some ten thousand years ago...", and I would encourage him to do so. Karajou 15:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Non-American has nothing to do with the Bible. Are you a parodist? DanH 15:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- I'm suspicious as well, Dan... .according to the guidelines, there's nothing wrong with "non-American" sources (which this wasn't) or sources which "contradict the Bible" (which this doesn't really), so long as they are properly attributed (which the statement was). HelpJazz 15:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)
