Difference between revisions of "User talk:Sillybear25"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sillybear25 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
um, no, it's not. What's wrong with leetspeak? it doesn't violate the commandments at all... | 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
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)