User talk:Simple

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Simple, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Simple!

--BethTalk 15:38, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

And I would suggest that you don't spend all your time on talk pages and such since you can be blocked for that. --BethTalk 15:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for being open about your purpose. Geo.Complain! 16:51, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here in the hopes that someone sees it:

Can anyone direct me to an official listing of article categories? I'd just as soon be sticking articles I create/contribute to in their proper categories, rather than leaving them loose and unsorted.

Thanks. Simple 18:16 (GMT -5), 2 July 2007

At present, I don't know why, the list is not working. Normally at the bottom of many pages there is, for example:

Categories: Artists | Painting

Clicking on Categories a list appears.

I hope this may help you.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:19, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks a ton, I guess I'll wait patiently for this to start working again! Simple 18:21 (GMT -5) 2 July 2007

Why Conservapedia?

In answer to your question # 3 "I do not understand why Conservapedia's creator(s) felt it necessary to create Conservapedia."

  1. Here's the main reason: Conservapedia.
  2. Here's 57 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
  3. Here are 16 supporting reasons: How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia.

Crocoite 18:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for taking interest! Here is my reply, if you are interested:
1.) I have actually already been linked to this page, and read it! Regardless, thanks. It would be a shame to have missed this link.
2.) While I have not taken the time to read those 57 examples of bias (and this is perhaps evidence of some bias on my part), those 57 examples are, to me, 1 clear example of what I don't understand: if awareness of specific examples of bias in Wikipedia is so high, why not take it upon oneself to fix them?
3.) I hadn't seen this page, thanks very much for the link. After reading it in its entirety, these are the few reponses I have:
a.) There seems to be somewhat liberal (and I do not mean that politically) usage of subjective language on this page. References to "burdensome copyright restrictions", and the statements made in entries #11, #13, #14 and #16 seem, to me, statements which have been heavily subjected to a single person's opinion.
b.)Now, I realize that this page is more of a mission statement than an actual encyclopedia entry, but the entire page contains material which is presented as fact, without so much as a single citation. Claims of 'bullying Wikipedia users', 'banning users for using 1st ammendment rights' could certainly use some actual proof that these things have ever happened.
c.) The phrase 'liberal censorship of conservative facts'. This one doesn't make sense to me, any more than the phrase 'conservative censorship of liberal facts'. There are no 'liberal facts' or 'conservative facts'. There are only facts. Censorship is censorship, regardless of who is responsible for it.
d.) I bet nobody saw this one coming, but I wholeheartedly support entries #1-4, #7-8, #10-11. While I do not think that each of these entries necessarily speak to a flaw of Wikipedia, I would most certainly consider them sufficient reason for creating one's own website. I can certainly see how some people would not want their children wandering into an explicit article about sex, drugs or violence!
Anyway, that's all I have to reply with - I hope I've not said anything offensive here, feel free to correct me if I have (or even if I haven't) ;) That's all for now... Simple 19:15 (GMT -5)