Difference between revisions of "User talk:Scott"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(to Scott)
(reply)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
:I invite you to stick around and talk things out. We are developing guidelines for sourcing, for dispute resolution, and so forth. You can help! See [[:Category:Proposed Conservapedia policy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:I invite you to stick around and talk things out. We are developing guidelines for sourcing, for dispute resolution, and so forth. You can help! See [[:Category:Proposed Conservapedia policy]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::Thanks Ed. I did not intend to have said "Fix it quick, or I'm out of here" about ''content'', although I perhaps had that thought about the attitudes of certain Conservapedia sysops towards other editors. I really did feel I had improved the [[Wikipedia]] article, and was disappointed that it was reverted without explanation.
 +
 +
::As Conservapedia claims to be (or has been reported to be) a conservative alternative to the "liberal" Wikipedia, articles about the comparisons and articles about topics that Conservatives and liberals are known to differ will inevitably receive more scrutiny, so if this project is to improve its image, these articles must be beyond criticism. Pointing fingers at articles that ''used to be'' bad without citing when is just lowering the bar to make it easier to dismiss Conservapedia.
 +
 +
::Your proposed policies and [[:Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]] look good, but are leading towards ruining the claim that [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] are the only rules. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 08:41, 3 April 2007

Welcome to Conservapedia. Please be sure to read the Conservapedia Commandments and enjoy edittin'. Premier Tom Mayfair 18:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi, Scott. I am a Wikipedian with 5 1/2 years experience editing there (and a former Developer, Bureaucrat and Sysop). I can sympathize with your frustration.
On the other hand, please bear in mind that Conservapedia and Wikipedia both evolved a great deal during their first year or two. Things take time, so I request that you be patient. Saying, "Fix it quick, or I'm out of here" puts a lot of pressure on us.
I have been here less than 3 weeks! If you check my contribs, you'll see whether I have accomplished anything of significance in this time.
I invite you to stick around and talk things out. We are developing guidelines for sourcing, for dispute resolution, and so forth. You can help! See Category:Proposed Conservapedia policy. --Ed Poor 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed. I did not intend to have said "Fix it quick, or I'm out of here" about content, although I perhaps had that thought about the attitudes of certain Conservapedia sysops towards other editors. I really did feel I had improved the Wikipedia article, and was disappointed that it was reverted without explanation.
As Conservapedia claims to be (or has been reported to be) a conservative alternative to the "liberal" Wikipedia, articles about the comparisons and articles about topics that Conservatives and liberals are known to differ will inevitably receive more scrutiny, so if this project is to improve its image, these articles must be beyond criticism. Pointing fingers at articles that used to be bad without citing when is just lowering the bar to make it easier to dismiss Conservapedia.
Your proposed policies and Category:Conservapedia Guidelines look good, but are leading towards ruining the claim that Conservapedia:Commandments are the only rules. --Scott 09:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)