Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
User talk:RolandPlankton (view source)
Revision as of 18:32, February 13, 2012
, 18:32, February 13, 2012→Rugby World Cup
Do you doubt the truth of the phrase you wanted cited? Its not a sentiment I share, and its bloody hard to find a cite for that sort of thing, but I don't think the sentiment is untrue for a casual fan. I know from talking to non-rugby people that the low number of tries and the general style of play turns a lot of people off. It doesn't turn me off, nor perhaps you, but I think it undisputable that it turns many off. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:30, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Do you doubt the truth of the phrase you wanted cited? Its not a sentiment I share, and its bloody hard to find a cite for that sort of thing, but I don't think the sentiment is untrue for a casual fan. I know from talking to non-rugby people that the low number of tries and the general style of play turns a lot of people off. It doesn't turn me off, nor perhaps you, but I think it undisputable that it turns many off. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:30, 12 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi Damian, In [Rugby World Cup], the phrase "the sudden death nature of the later stages tend to produce dour rugby that is often unattractive to casual fans" may or may not be true, but it looks rather like opinion and contains vague words "tend to produce", and hence needs to be attributed to someone. If no attribution can be found then the phrase should be deleted. I believe that this approach is in accordance with the Conservapedia Commandments and the Manual of Style. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:23, 13 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi Damian, In [Rugby World Cup], the phrase "the sudden death nature of the later stages tend to produce dour rugby that is often unattractive to casual fans" may or may not be true, but it looks rather like opinion and contains vague words "tend to produce", and hence needs to be attributed to someone. If no attribution can be found then the phrase should be deleted. I believe that this approach is in accordance with the Conservapedia Commandments and the Manual of Style. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 13:23, 13 February 2012 (EST)
::Well, perhaps, but there is also points 10 and 13 in the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia differences with Wikipedia] page to consider which is appropriate here. Remember also that on this website, personal conversations are a sufficient source [http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:25_Worst_Court_Decisions#cite_note-8 for observations]. I do hear what you are saying, but I think that the claim being made is so obviously true, that the referencing standards of this website do not require a cite. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 13:32, 13 February 2012 (EST)