62
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + +
→Growing Conservapedia
:One of the reasons that Conservapedia doesn't grow is that people like me come here and get told we need 'official' pre-approval for our edits. If it takes everyone 48 hours to get an edit approved then it's going to be millions of years before Conservapedia has anywhere near the same coverage as Wikipedia, no matter how much we publicise it. That's why I used the same header as you - because in essence it's about the same subject. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:One of the reasons that Conservapedia doesn't grow is that people like me come here and get told we need 'official' pre-approval for our edits. If it takes everyone 48 hours to get an edit approved then it's going to be millions of years before Conservapedia has anywhere near the same coverage as Wikipedia, no matter how much we publicise it. That's why I used the same header as you - because in essence it's about the same subject. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 11:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Hi Daphnea. Using my header to get his attention, after posting him 4 times, is whatever you'd like to call it. The fact is that wiki incorrectly classifies creationism as a myth ''in relation to'' evolution and the Obama thing has been gone over a thousand times. There have been more acts of vandalism here than one could care to point out. If you merely meant to make edits that were incorrect (especially the creation myth one, which was shocking) and not to remove factual information from a page, then please realize that most such removals in the past have been acts of vandalism, not mistakes. Still, everyone gave you the benefit of the doubt (that it was merely a mistake) and just asked you to check edits on that page with Andy as your knowledge of the wiki bias was missing. Such benefit of the doubt would not be given at wiki. If you disagree and feel that creationism should be called a myth in relation to evo then you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that that's bias (and unwarranted in an encyclopedia) and removing it from the well researched bias page was incorrect. Hope this clears up my position and best regards.