Wikipedia talk:Beyond Good and Evil: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 14 May 2006

Define good and evil

Joke? I oppose this as this assumes good and evil exists and can be defined in an NPOV objective way. --Nnp 13:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) --Nnp 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for discussion

I'm not necessarily in favour of this, but as amended by Nnp, it is now suitable for discussion. Runcorn 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted though, don't blame me for the current version. I'm not in favor of any statement that involves good or evil, and wikipedia is stated to be NPOV already. Oh well. --Nnp 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion may well have been good, but it was a drastic alteration of the proposal. It would be best to suggest it separately. Yesterdog 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to do that though, since NPOV is already a stated goal. --Nnp 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, then the only _new_ resolution on the table is BG&E. What do you think of it? Yesterdog 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I am in favor of this proposed guideline, because I think trying to make sure Wikipedia is "good" or "evil" is a waste of time, and a distraction from our common goal of creating an encyclopedia. Jimpartame 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ::Your suggestion may well have been good, but it was a drastic alteration of the proposal.  It would be best to suggest it separately. [[User:Yesterdog|Yesterdog]] 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 :::I see no need to do that though, since NPOV is already a stated goal. --[[User:Nnp|Nnp]] 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
+::::Perfect, then the only _new_ resolution on the table is BG&E.  What do you think of it? [[User:Yesterdog|Yesterdog]] 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 ==Support==