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 they 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. This is an example of something that has undue weight as far as it being near the top half of the article or even the top 90% of the article.

::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)