Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Reverted edits by FredWilson (Talk); changed back to last version by FellowChristian16
Line 396: Line 396:     
I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--'''''<span style="border: 2px #000000 solid;background:#FFD800; font-variant:small-caps">[[User:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Fellow</font>]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Christian16</font>]]</span>''''' 19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 
I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--'''''<span style="border: 2px #000000 solid;background:#FFD800; font-variant:small-caps">[[User:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Fellow</font>]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|<font color="#000000">Christian16</font>]]</span>''''' 19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
−
  −
== Comments ==
  −
  −
6. Instead you allow the opinions of editors stated as they are facts. Especially if that editor is and admin, or somebody important for Conservapedia. Example: "The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned '''by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.'''" - [[Wikipedia]]
  −
<br>I'm not saying it's not true, it might be, as well as it might also be for Conservapedia, but where is he research that demonstrates that?
  −
  −
8. Unless it's bad for herself.
  −
  −
9. So allowing research from casual editors that might be teenagers?
  −
  −
12. Like this one:
  −
  −
{{expand}}
  −
  −
14. That might be a good thing, but also they should be verified to see if they really are experts.
  −
  −
15. Those that were banned, were banned for planning on vandalizing Wikipedia, not because they stated their opinion.
  −
  −
  −
'''If you have strong arguments against this, don't delete it, but instead state those arguments.'''
 
4,604

edits

Navigation menu