Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 238: Line 238:  
::Here is a better change to the entry as per some feedback:  (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]])[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
::Here is a better change to the entry as per some feedback:  (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]])[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:47, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
Andy I made a recent change not as a compromise with you but as a compromise with TK as I fully expect you to agree with the change I made. I made the change so it does not appear as if Conservapedia is making a baseless claim and it rightly puts more pressure on Wikipedia. And I have noticed that in one case of our criticism of Wikipedian on another issue it appears our pressure on Wikipedia has caused change. It also strongly affirms the sanctity of life. Here is my suggested changed: "[[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]).  For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]].  In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 
Andy I made a recent change not as a compromise with you but as a compromise with TK as I fully expect you to agree with the change I made. I made the change so it does not appear as if Conservapedia is making a baseless claim and it rightly puts more pressure on Wikipedia. And I have noticed that in one case of our criticism of Wikipedian on another issue it appears our pressure on Wikipedia has caused change. It also strongly affirms the sanctity of life. Here is my suggested changed: "[[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]).  For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]].  In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
*Conservative, why are you watering down Andy's language?  Why are you seeking to curry favor with WP editors?  Why do you continue to revert the Owners own edits? Why can't you use the email like other Sysops when you have doubts, or wish to make changes?  What is your compulsion with altering ever post Andy makes to this section?  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:24, 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." ==
nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487

edits

Navigation menu