Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:How to write an article"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Isn't this implying that editors should discuss proposed changes to an article before editing? And isn't that a contradiction of the 90/10 rule, which suggests that constructive editing i...) |
(→Carte blanche?: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Isn't this implying that editors should discuss proposed changes to an article before editing? And isn't that a contradiction of the 90/10 rule, which suggests that constructive editing is better than talk? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT) | Isn't this implying that editors should discuss proposed changes to an article before editing? And isn't that a contradiction of the 90/10 rule, which suggests that constructive editing is better than talk? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Carte blanche? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:02, August 29, 2008
Isn't this implying that editors should discuss proposed changes to an article before editing? And isn't that a contradiction of the 90/10 rule, which suggests that constructive editing is better than talk? Sideways 16:32, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Carte blanche?
This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a carte blanche that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --DirkB 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)