SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + +
→Deleted: Suggest moving to essay space.
:@Robin: Please do not write things that insult admins or anyone else. It's a really effective way to get yourself banned, and you seem like a smart and useful person. Find a constructive way to describe what you are doing, and how you interact with your friends in describing CP. (My interactions are also, ummm, interesting.) If you want to discuss these issues with me further, without the danger of a 90/10 ban, feel free to contact me at sam4557@gmail.com [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (EST)
:@Robin: Please do not write things that insult admins or anyone else. It's a really effective way to get yourself banned, and you seem like a smart and useful person. Find a constructive way to describe what you are doing, and how you interact with your friends in describing CP. (My interactions are also, ummm, interesting.) If you want to discuss these issues with me further, without the danger of a 90/10 ban, feel free to contact me at sam4557@gmail.com [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (EST)
::I think the two article solution is a bad idea. The uncertain/grey areas which need more research (such as Wind Turbine Syndome) can have pro/con material along with a probabilistic explanation. The current economic viability/subsidization should be cut and dry. Any reasonably expected improvements in the technology which will affect the economics could be researched and written about. In addition, the environmental impact could be mentioned (birds killed vs. less pollutants, etc. etc.). In addition, the politics could be mentioned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:55, 13 November 2015 (EST)
::I think the two article solution is a bad idea. The uncertain/grey areas which need more research (such as Wind Turbine Syndome) can have pro/con material along with a probabilistic explanation. The current economic viability/subsidization should be cut and dry. Any reasonably expected improvements in the technology which will affect the economics could be researched and written about. In addition, the environmental impact could be mentioned (birds killed vs. less pollutants, etc. etc.). In addition, the politics could be mentioned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:55, 13 November 2015 (EST)
:::I agree with you :-) :-) :-) The idea of having two articles, one in the singular and one in the plural, was a really bad idea. But I had to make a quick decision, and came out of my "sabbatical" to do so, because it appeared that, if I didn't do something quickly, material would be deleted, and Robin would get discouraged and would get a completely wrong idea about Conservapedia, and he would leave. A much better solution is to move the uncensored version into essay space. Would you please do that? Essays seem to be a good solution to the problems of content control that keep cropping up. Witness, for example, [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]], which has worked out very well.
:::@Robin: in the new article, please do not remove those things (e.g. they're an environmental disaster because they kill birds, and here's a picture of it) that you consider alarmist, untrue, outdated, or excessively biased. Just put some kind of "there are those who believe that ...." stuff around it. There is extensive discussion of this point in the Conservapedia Commandments. We should make this essay be a shining example of obeying the commandments.
:::@Cons: I completely agree with you on renaming the "disturbed character" page. See my voluminous comments in the archived (how convenient!) section of the talk page. My attempts to get the article focused properly fell on completely deaf ears. Perhaps this could also benefit from an essay page, one that does not elevate some 150-year-old dispute with Louis Pasteur to the status of one of the top 3 or 4 historical examples of messed-up thinking.
:::I'll be back on November 28, unless other emergencies crop up. Now please excuse me wile I '''use the preview button'''. OK, looks good. (As good as anything I write, that is. :-) Hitting "save". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 09:20, 13 November 2015 (EST)