Difference between revisions of "User talk:HarabecW"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sorry)
(Sorry)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 
It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 
:Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 
:Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 +
::So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:03, May 22, 2011

Wicca

Please wait for an answer to your request before deleting material. --Joaquín Martínez 11:08, 7 May 2011 (EDT)

HarabecW, all I see you doing now is slipping in fact tags or removing information; I saw very little improving done to the Wicca article, which you said you would do. We are here to build up an encyclopedia, not take it down. Karajou 17:40, 8 May 2011 (EDT)

Tagging is improving the site. It lets people know where things need to be removed, added, or changed. And I cant seem to make any changes without getting yelled at by someone that I'm stepping on their turf. I have also doubled the size of the Wicca article and improved it's accuracy greatly. I am contributing plenty. -HarabecW

Gallery of American Heroes

Done, thanks, I agree with you in this subject. It was posted by a User that later was blocked. --Joaquín Martínez 00:16, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Sorry

Looking at your good contributions I think you must have just made a mistake. Sorry for calling that vandalism and not giving you a chance to fix it. Nate 13:56, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

It doesnt need to be fixed, what I did is something the community is obviously OK with as no one responded to me for over a week when I posted massive issues with the original article. The article needs to be deleted --HarabecW 13:58, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

Well, I agree that some of that stuff is questionable but just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean it's Ok. Nate 14:00, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
So what are we supposed to do? Just let it sit there until someone deigns to discuss it? --HarabecW 14:03, 22 May 2011 (EDT)