| Revision as of 22:24, 27 October 2005 editZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits archiving to begin proposal 2.0 debate← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:27, 27 October 2005 edit undoZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits Proposal 2.0 debateNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :''For a vote on the issue, see ]'' | :''For a vote on the issue, see ]'' | ||
| :''For all other discussions on the original proposal see ]'' | :''For all other discussions on the original proposal see ]'' | ||
| == Proposal 2.0 debate == | |||
| In my interpretation "conspiracy theory" is an unscientific method of presentation when utilized in an article's title, what do other people think? (hopefully people not from the POV gang and/or people that will not resort to disinformation tactics). ]] 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:27, 27 October 2005
- For a past main page discussion of the issue see /Main Archive1
- For a vote on the issue, see Misplaced Pages talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2
- For all other discussions on the original proposal see Misplaced Pages talk:Conspiracy theory/archive3
Proposal 2.0 debate
In my interpretation "conspiracy theory" is an unscientific method of presentation when utilized in an article's title, what do other people think? (hopefully people not from the POV gang and/or people that will not resort to disinformation tactics). zen master T 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)