4,604
edits
Changes
mLine 607:
Line 607: − − ::You are absolutely right Ashly, but you had better have a word with Conservative. He has been over on the [[Atheism]] page asserting that it is for atheists to prove the non-existence of god.--[[User:Horace13|Horace13]] 19:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT) Line 621:
Line 619: − What sort of two-bit site makes arbitrary blocks? It's pathetic. --[[User:Horace13|Horace13]] 19:17, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
Reverted edits by Horace13 (Talk); changed back to last version by Ajkgordon
: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
==Arbitary blocking==
==Arbitary blocking==
:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==