Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jeffsang"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Not sarcastic or silly, but meant honestly, however, it's a very liberal POV)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Sarcastic or silly edits will result in a removal from the site.  Please refrain from doing so.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 
Sarcastic or silly edits will result in a removal from the site.  Please refrain from doing so.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)
  
−
:While reviewing his edit, it was in complete earnest, and not a sarcastic or silly edit, quoting a liberal source as a reference should simply be not allowed.
+
:While reviewing his edit, it was in complete earnest, and not a sarcastic or silly edit, quoting a liberal source as a reference should simply be not allowed. {{unsigned|Puellanivis}}
 +
 
 +
::I agree that the edit wasn't sarcastic or silly. (Though I hope Peullanavis' comment about disallowing liberal sources was...) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:49, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::Sorry, I clarify, the source is a liberal non-American site from a "science" foundation. Such material that contradicts the Bible is inappropriate for CP. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 14:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:::The edit in question was this:  "The banana's useful design is seen by some as offering evidence of an [[intelligent design]]er.<ref>http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html</ref> ''Evolutionists point out that the banana did indeed have an intelligent designer, man, who cultivated..."'' (his edit in italics).  I found it to be a mild mockery of the article.  It could have been written a bit better than that, such as "evolutionists believe that the banana was cultivated by man some ten thousand years ago...", and I would encourage him to do so.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
Non-American has nothing to do with the Bible. Are you a parodist? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
:I'm suspicious as well, Dan... .according to the [[conservapedia:guidelines|guidelines]], there's nothing wrong with "non-American" sources (which this wasn't) or sources which "contradict the Bible" (which this doesn't really), so long as they are properly attributed (which the statement was). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Latest revision as of 20:13, December 19, 2007

Sarcastic or silly edits will result in a removal from the site. Please refrain from doing so. Karajou 14:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)

While reviewing his edit, it was in complete earnest, and not a sarcastic or silly edit, quoting a liberal source as a reference should simply be not allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puellanivis (talk)
I agree that the edit wasn't sarcastic or silly. (Though I hope Peullanavis' comment about disallowing liberal sources was...) HelpJazz 14:49, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry, I clarify, the source is a liberal non-American site from a "science" foundation. Such material that contradicts the Bible is inappropriate for CP. --Puellanivis 14:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)
The edit in question was this: "The banana's useful design is seen by some as offering evidence of an intelligent designer.[1] Evolutionists point out that the banana did indeed have an intelligent designer, man, who cultivated..." (his edit in italics). I found it to be a mild mockery of the article. It could have been written a bit better than that, such as "evolutionists believe that the banana was cultivated by man some ten thousand years ago...", and I would encourage him to do so. Karajou 15:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Non-American has nothing to do with the Bible. Are you a parodist? DanH 15:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I'm suspicious as well, Dan... .according to the guidelines, there's nothing wrong with "non-American" sources (which this wasn't) or sources which "contradict the Bible" (which this doesn't really), so long as they are properly attributed (which the statement was). HelpJazz 15:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)