| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
User talk:109.152.3.104
From RationalWiki
If you want to raise objections to specific content in the article, you're free to do so on its talkpage. If you blank or otherwise vandalize the page, it will be reverted, however. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was assuming the first edit was done in good faith (no pun intended) and hence I explained why I undid it and what would make me accept it. The subsequent blanking of the entire Qur'anic contradictions page, to be replaced with the conspiratorial-sounding claim that "Everyone please study Islam for yourselves from reliable sources, the author of this post" [presumably yours truly?] "is deleting my amendments because he wants to deceive you" makes me doubt my initial assumption of a good faith edit. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)