SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 385:
Line 385: + + + + + + + + +
→User:Dimetrodont: new section
:: Thanks for the additional info. I've uploaded it, as you have probably already noticed. There was something strange going on with the file, so I had to wait until I was able to convert it. Once again, JPEG saves the day. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 15:42, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the additional info. I've uploaded it, as you have probably already noticed. There was something strange going on with the file, so I had to wait until I was able to convert it. Once again, JPEG saves the day. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 15:42, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
== User:Dimetrodont ==
This person was an obvious vandal, and was blocked 5 years ago, in 2008, so that block has expired. I recommend blocking him infinitely and deleting the page. But there are a few interesting points here:
*People cite Wikipedia all the time. They cite extremely offensive sites also. Sites that are vastly at odds with the views of the CP admins, far more so than Wikipedia is. The reason for the extreme disdain of WP seems to be that, unlike those other sites, WP is a wiki, so people can edit it, but when fundamentalists or creationists attempt to insert their views on WP, those edits are reverted. There is no corresponding way to attempt to insert material into HuffingtonPost, so there is no corresponding level of complaint. The editorial stance of WP is just seriously at odds with the stance of the CP admins on matters of evolution, religion, and sexuality. WP is actually a rather reliable source for almost everything. The problems and scandals at WP are not surprising, given the site's size.
*The cited Wikipedia article clearly states that mammals are '''not''' descended from dimetrodon. This person's crime was not in saying that they are, but in citing an article while making a claim about what the article says, when the article actually says the opposite. This practice is not that uncommon at Conservapedia. I've seen it a number of times. Usually it's just taking something out of context in a misleading way. But occasionally it's blatant falsehood such as this.
*You should try not to overuse phrases like "incorrect liberal info". I frequently see the term "liberal" applied to things that have nothing to do with liberalism or politics. Whether mammals are descended from dimetrodons (they aren't) is a matter of science, not politics. It happens that acceptance of evolution is probably higher among liberals than among conservatives, but that doesn't make evolution a "liberal theory" any more than relativity is.
*This person was blocked, back in 2009, by our friend the [[Conservapedia:Guard dog]].
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 10:52, 4 September 2016 (EDT)