104
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + +
User talk:Physicsnut (view source)
Revision as of 18:03, December 19, 2007
, 18:03, December 19, 2007my apologies as well...
:::I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm sorry that your first impression of the site has been so poor... I don't make the rules though, and I don't control what remains and what is "bias" in each article - that is left up to a select few editors at Conservapedia. But thank you for the sources and the suggested changes, I'll try editing the article to implement them as "neutrally" as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::I would like to apologize as well. Unfortunately, none of your edits cited any of that information, and on Conservapedia, yes, you do need to cite ''everything'', especially when it disagrees with the already existing bias of the article. And if particularly drastically alters the tone of a paragraph or the page, potentially discuss it on the Talk page, stating that you are aware that such information would be contraversial for this site. However, always remind yourself of the bias that Conservapedia has, and speak appropriately to that audience. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 13:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)