282
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
→Growing Conservapedia
:::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. 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)
::::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)
::::I thought I ''was'' editing an uncontroversial article, and nobody has yet told me what is wrong with the edits. I guess if people want to object to Wikipedia when it calls a creation story myth that's fine (even though most article clearly state that calling something "myth" does not imply that it is false). But the other two edits were simple factual errors which I corrected. How much less controversial can I be? Still, I guess if that's the game that people want to play here then I guess you have to put up with it or leave. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)