Changes

: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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]} 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky didn't kill himself'']]} 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.   

::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 they 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 and having a reasonable tone and statements so people don't bail from the article early. For example, the Macron article engages in hyper-partisan language that is not even accurate in places (Macron is fascist, etc. France was taken over by fascist Germany in WWII and now they have a fascist president?). 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 dumping your frequent all-or-nothing thinking which makes it more likely that you engage in demonization. So many of your articles have hyper-partisan, poor lede paragraphs/sections which prevent persuadable readers from digging into the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:49, March 16, 2024 (EDT)

::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 and having a reasonable tone and statements so people don't bail from the article early. For example, the Macron article engages in hyper-partisan language that is not even accurate in places (Macron is fascist, etc. France was taken over by fascist Germany in WWII and now they have a fascist president?). 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 dumping your frequent all-or-nothing thinking which makes it more likely that you engage in demonization. So many of your articles have hyper-partisan, poor lede paragraphs/sections which prevent persuadable readers from digging into the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:49, March 16, 2024 (EDT)