Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sillybear25"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: 900D LU(|< j00Z R 901|\|9 70 |\|33D 17)
 
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
900D LU(|< j00Z R 901|\|9 70 |\|33D 17
+
101z 7h4nkz
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{BlockNotice}}
 +
 
 +
um, no, it's not. What's wrong with leetspeak? it doesn't violate the commandments at all...
 +
 
 +
I think that she's upset that you took out the "Links to paganism" section in the Islam article.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 19:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
That isn't against the commandments either...
 +
 
 +
I mean your removal of useful and well sourced material from the Islam page.  Sorry for the confusion. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] <sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]]</sup> 19:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:the rationale for deleting the "links to paganism" entry was solid.  However, it may be more appropriate to include the link between Christianity and paganism in the article itself.  More information is always superior to less.  --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 19:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 23:19, April 4, 2007

101z 7h4nkz


Stop hand.svg Block Notice
Edits you have made violate The Conservapedia Commandments. Further violations may result in your username being blocked.

um, no, it's not. What's wrong with leetspeak? it doesn't violate the commandments at all...

I think that she's upset that you took out the "Links to paganism" section in the Islam article.--Epicurius 19:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That isn't against the commandments either...

I mean your removal of useful and well sourced material from the Islam page. Sorry for the confusion. ~ SharonS Talk! 19:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


the rationale for deleting the "links to paganism" entry was solid. However, it may be more appropriate to include the link between Christianity and paganism in the article itself. More information is always superior to less. --Rustyjd07 19:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)