Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 355:
Line 355: + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 13:03, October 1, 2007
, 13:03, October 1, 2007conservatives are very forgiving people
:::There are more edits by this CP sysop that try to enforce some of the phrases I cited (and some others). Tell me, Ed, is this anything more than unsourced POV and bias, pushed by a Conservapedia sysop with an obvious COI? Does Conservapedia encourage its sysops to vandalize Wikipedia and to whitewash its own article? Will there be any sort of accountability? Andy explicitly ignored that point, how about you?
:::There are more edits by this CP sysop that try to enforce some of the phrases I cited (and some others). Tell me, Ed, is this anything more than unsourced POV and bias, pushed by a Conservapedia sysop with an obvious COI? Does Conservapedia encourage its sysops to vandalize Wikipedia and to whitewash its own article? Will there be any sort of accountability? Andy explicitly ignored that point, how about you?
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. <small>Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that?</small> --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I stand by what I said, and exactly by what I said. What you or Andy try to put into my mouth is none of my business. If you feel like blocking me for that post, go ahead. But I feel you hurt me enough by slapping me around with your pretty little speech about ideological attacks and how liberals and Democrats attack without providing examples. But of course, that was anything but an attack or whatever. Here, just do it. I'll stand still. An hour? A day? A month? Or hey, maybe a permanent one! After all, Conservapedia has so many active editors left, it can easily afford to permanently block a guy who created, like, THIRTY or so most wanted pages within ten days. And oh, another block will do WONDERS for my motivation to help! Yes, all in the name of justice for my bad, bad attack. <small>Do I sound bitter? ...can you be blocked for that?</small> --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:29, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
Your motivation is not an issue. The only thing that matters is whether our readers can trust you. I asked you to give the article name and expose the "bias" you allege that I added. Your response implied that you hadn't made the allegation at all. Then you went on an emotional tangent and (as I predicted) followed up your denial with a tit for tat attack, as if your failure to provide examples of your false accusation is excused by my not giving fresh examples of what is common knowledge: that liberals (like you) make ideological attacks without providing examples.
I don't know if you really believe what you are saying or are simply hoping to confuse the reader with convoluted arguments. But you can take a week to think over what you have done. Perhaps you will choose to clarify whether or not you think I have "added bias" to any encyclopedia article. Unless you are prepared to give an example, you would do well to take that back. That is the only way you can regain trust: by admitting your error.
Unlike liberals, we conservatives are very forgiving people. Just admit your mistake, embrace the truth and join us! :-)
: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.
: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.