Changes

:: 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.--[[User:Irpw|Irpw]] 13:11, 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.--[[User:Irpw|Irpw]] 13:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You keep criticising my original edits, but what I wrote has nothing to do with them. I've been told to "discuss: with My Schlafly my edits, and I've been completely unable to get a response. As I said, I'm sorry I offended you with using a similar heading to you, but it's not really the issue. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You keep criticising my original edits, but what I wrote has nothing to do with them. I've been told to "discuss: with My Schlafly my edits, and I've been completely unable to get a response. As I said, I'm sorry I offended you with using a similar heading to you, but it's not really the issue. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't want to speak for anyone and certainly not for him, but it could be he saw the same fault with your edits and just doesn't have the time to answer everyone, especially since most would have suspected something (maybe wrongly, but it comes to mind) with regard to the main edit, as that example of bias is found throughout WP.  He can't answer every new editor who's only made controversial ones.  My suggestion would be to pick an area of interest that's less controversial, like sports, military history, botony, npov bios, whatever and to add non-controversial contributions there and then I'm sure he'll spend the time addressing the other issues you raise.  He can't answer everyone.  Show that you really want to add value to the site.

::::I don't want to speak for anyone and certainly not for him, but it could be he saw the same fault with your edits and just doesn't have the time to answer everyone, especially since most would have suspected something (maybe wrongly, but it comes to mind) with regard to the main edit, as that example of bias is found throughout WP.  He can't answer every new editor who's only made controversial ones.  My suggestion would be to pick an area of interest that's less controversial, like sports, military history, botony, npov bios, whatever and to add non-controversial contributions there and then I'm sure he'll spend the time addressing the other issues you raise.  He can't answer everyone.  Just show that you really want to add value to the site and I'm sure he will.--[[User:Irpw|Irpw]] 13:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)