Changes

: I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples.  However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here.  I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

: I'm confident that with more research I could find more examples.  However, the examples given are striking enough, and I see that Wikipedia changed them quickly in response to the criticism here.  I've move on to other issues for now but please feel free to research further to improve our entry.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide?  How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide?  As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything.  I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up.  It is really not a compelling argument.  I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried.  Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it.  I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry.  However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

::Andy, one entry mentioning that a distant nephew committed suicide is a striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide? Mentioning that a man committed suicide in the beginning of the article is striking example of Wikipedia HEAVILY PROMOTING suicide?  How do those entries heavily sell people on the idea of committing suicide?  As far as saying you could find more examples that could be used as an argument to defend anything.  I think you will agree that many times the evolutionists say with more time spent evidence will likely show up.  It is really not a compelling argument.  I certainly expect better from you than I could find more evidence if I tried.  Please instead of merely moving on to other articles please let us delete this entry if you are not going to adequately support it.  I certainly don't expect you to drop everything and adequately support this entry.  However, if you are not willing to support the entry then simply erase it. If you find time later to support it you can always put it back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes".  I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue I don't believe I am acting out of line.  With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word.  I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word.  And who really knows if there are any examples?  I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were.  However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours.  Fair enough?  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy, thank you for removing the word heavily in regards to "heavily promotes".  I really am not trying to be difficult and given that a Conservapedia editor whom I respect is agreeing with me on this issue via private letter I don't believe I am acting out of line.  With that being said PROMOTE is still a strong word.  I realize it would be a lot of work to dig through the garbage dump of Wikipedia in order to find sufficient examples to demonstrate that there are indeed examples of Wikipedia PROMOTING suicide since promote is a strong word.  And who really knows if there are any examples?  I certainly don't but I would not be surprised if there were.  However, I think your time could be better spent than digging through the garbage dump of Wikipedia. Therefore, I suggest you wait until Conservapedia gets larger and revisit the issue. You can then compare statistics and then reasonably make the claim that Wikipedia is inordinately preoccupied with the issue of suicide if their percentage of mentioning the word is much higher than ours.  Fair enough?  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==

== Wikipedia does NOT describe deceit as a "post-punk" rock album that is "austere, brilliant and indescribable." ==