Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,865
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + + +
→Macron's wife is a possible transexual? Why is this in the article?
:And I even helped you on that article, having no idea what you were going to do with it. I was led to believe it was for educational purposes. But when it became clear your purpose and intent was mockery, I regret that collaboration with you. You deceived me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]</sup> 18:29, March 16, 2024 (EDT)}}
:And I even helped you on that article, having no idea what you were going to do with it. I was led to believe it was for educational purposes. But when it became clear your purpose and intent was mockery, I regret that collaboration with you. You deceived me. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]</sup> 18:29, March 16, 2024 (EDT)}}
::NASA probably has denied the man on the moon landing was a fraud allegation, but that doesn't mean we highlight it in the 2nd section of the [[Apollo 11]] Conservapedia article. Oh well, some people double down on their craziness because the loathe admitting that they are wrong about matters.
::Unfortunately, I don't expect the Emmanuel Macron to hit the 1,000,000 a page view benchmark. It's not even close the 100,000 page view benchmark. The leading section is terrible because it doesn't follow the principle of an article building a case. For example, it engages in hyper-partisan language that is not even accurate in places (Macron is fascist, etc.). What this does is prevent the people who are persuadable from diving deeper into the article. So you are merely preaching to the choir which is a pretty lame and pointless exercise. I would suggest your all-or-nothing thinking which makes it more likely that you engage in demonization. So many of your articles do this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:49, March 16, 2024 (EDT)