User talk:Irpw

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, nice suggestion on Andy's talk page. Are you afraid to use your real name? I'm not surprised, given the smear tactics used by liberals. But any campaign will have to have a visible leader. Perhaps you want to help from the sidelines, eh? --Ed Poor Talk 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Ed and thanks. It seems a bit premature to give names, etc., but I have no problem doing so. Spoke with a security expert and got set up after the first round of attacks. The interesting thing is I debated liberals for years with no problem and even with some friendship - only had these problems with atheists. I'd be happy to take any roll and/or help spearhead it if wanted, but I'll wait to see if that's the direction he wishes to go.

Growing Conservapedia

Daphnea, why are you using my header to get his attention? From what I see the Obama thing has been debated ad infinitum and Andy's right, Harvard did have a strong affirmative action policy and Obama was far less accomplished than other members of the same board, hence 1 + 1 = 2. Also, you edited out that wiki calls creationism a myth and then try to twist the point. It's not about the origins in cultures page and you know that. They refer to it as a myth on discussions of evo vs creationism. If you want to poke holes at least do so with intellectual honesty. I'm sorry for taking the liberty to write this, especially as I'm new. And my views don't represent anyone other than my own. I wasn't going to comment on your disingenuous twisting but your use of my thread line to get his attention seems to warrant a response. It could be that others have a different viewpoint and I certainly won't speak for Mr. Schlafly. --Irpw 11:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT) copied from User talk:Aschlafly

Hi Irpw. I'm sorry if you think I'm "hijacking" your header, but I am actually trying to make a serious point. The point is not about Barak Obama, it's about Conservapedia. I don't fault your suggestions for increasing the awareness of Conservapedia, but the real problem with Conservapedia's credibility is that it is too small. Ridiculously small.
One of the reasons that Conservapedia doesn't grow is that people like me come here and get told we need 'official' pre-approval for our edits. If it takes everyone 48 hours to get an edit approved then it's going to be millions of years before Conservapedia has anywhere near the same coverage as Wikipedia, no matter how much we publicise it. That's why I used the same header as you - because in essence it's about the same subject. Daphnea 11:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Hi Daphnea. Using my header to get his attention, after posting him 4 times, is whatever you'd like to call it. The fact is that wiki incorrectly classifies creationism as a myth in relation to evolution and the Obama thing has been gone over a thousand times. There have been more acts of vandalism here than one could care to point out. If you merely meant to make edits that were incorrect (especially the creation myth one, which was shocking) and not to remove factual information from a page, then please realize that most such removals in the past have been acts of vandalism, not mistakes. Still, everyone gave you the benefit of the doubt (that it was merely a mistake) and just asked you to check edits on that page with Andy as your knowledge of the wiki bias was missing. Such benefit of the doubt would not be given at wiki. If you disagree and feel that creationism should be called a myth in relation to evo then you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that that's bias (and unwarranted in an encyclopedia) and removing it from the well researched bias page was incorrect. Hope this clears up my position and best regards.--Irpw 13:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
You keep criticising my original edits, but what I wrote has nothing to do with them. I've been told to "discuss: with My Schlafly my edits, and I've been completely unable to get a response. As I said, I'm sorry I offended you with using a similar heading to you, but it's not really the issue. Daphnea 13:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't want to speak for anyone and certainly not for him, but it could be he saw the same fault with your edits and just doesn't have the time to answer everyone, especially since most would have suspected something (maybe wrongly, but it comes to mind) with regard to the main edit, as that example of bias is found throughout WP. He can't answer every new editor who's only made controversial ones. My suggestion would be to pick an area of interest that's less controversial, like sports, military history, botony, npov bios, whatever and to add non-controversial contributions there and then I'm sure he'll spend the time addressing the other issues you raise. He can't answer everyone. Just show that you really want to add value to the site and I'm sure he will.--Irpw 13:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I thought I was editing an uncontroversial article, and nobody has yet told me what is wrong with the edits. I guess if people want to object to Wikipedia when it calls a creation story myth that's fine (even though Wikipedia clearly states that calling something "myth" does not imply that it is false). But the other two edits were simple factual errors which I corrected. How much less controversial can I be? Still, I guess if that's the game that people want to play here then I guess you have to put up with it or leave. Daphnea 13:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I did some brief reading before on the Obama stuff as the question comes up often and Andy's addressed it a bunch of times (sort of along the lines I explained above, just better). I think you'll find that the policies here are quite fair. I'd still suggest trying a non-controversial page.