SkipCaptcha, nsSupply_SidersR, nsSupply_Siders_
8,436
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − editIm a cum stain waiting to happen+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
revert vandal - block requested
{{User talk:Iduan/header}}
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"
|-
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal">
*2007
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]
*[[/Archive5|(December)]]<br/>
*2008
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]
*[[/Archive8|(August)]]<br/>
*2009
*[[/Archive9|(January)]]
*[[/Archive10|(February)]]
*[[/Archive11|(March)]]
*[[/Archive12|(April)]]<br/>
*2010
*[[/Archive13|(January)]]
</div>
|}
;)
==Conservapedia's message==
I both understand and appreciate Conservapedia's efforts to create an encyclopedia from a conservative perspective, but doesn't mocking liberal publications for doing the same greatly undermine those principles? [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 09:54, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
:(original message:The sarcastic tone of your edit to the Sarah Palin article [[liberal deceit|wasn't acceptable]]; you "praised" Palin in the article, but linked to a liberal website ridiculing her for the point (a site which you acknowledged was liberal [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Huffington_Post&oldid=785188 here]). Constructive edits are welcome here, but be mindful of what constructive means. We are constructing an encyclopedia from the conservative perspective. (Also, on a lighter note: please always review your edit after you've made it - you left out a <nowiki>start <ref></nowiki> tag)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:23, 5 June 2010 (EDT))
:: We point out the flaws in the liberal perspective that those publications endorse. And that still doesn't explain you using a source criticizing Palin while praising Palin in the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 11:29, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
By no means did I ever acknowledge any political leanings that the Huffington Post might have had. Rather, I used Conservapedia's own opinion set forth in the website's article about the Huffington Post [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Huffington_Post&oldid=785188 here], not my own personal beliefs about the website. In fact, I don't believe I even used the word "liberal" or anything connoting it in the above link. That one's on you.
Secondly, Palin doesn't deserve to be praised for much. I'm a fan of the old guard conservatives--Ronald Reagan, the Buckleys, the Goldwaters, Bush, Sr.. If the Conservative party is going to band together behind the likes of Palin, I'm not sure it's a party I want to adhere to anymore. And while the rebut may be that Conservapedia stands behind her, Conservapedians as a whole represent a mere fraction of the conservative intellectual population.
And in all honesty, I am appreciating the intellectual sparring match we are having.
I would like to amend the statement above about Palin not being deserved to be praised much. That was meant to address her faculties as a politician. I am impressed with the way she has handled the ups and downs in her own personal life. {{unsigned|Acwellman}} -- 09:10, 6 June 2010
:Wikilawyer somewhere else, Acwellman. Is this the kind of "debate" Green Farms is teaching these days? You are no more conservative than John Kerry. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 12:44, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
::Huffington Post is obviously a liberal source, even Wikipedia acknowledges it as so. I'm glad you've enjoyed the back-and-forth, but unfortunately debate isn't the reason I started the conversation. I started the conversation because you made a deceitful edit - using a source criticizing Palin while praising her in the text that you wrote, and that's not acceptable, and I think you know that. You have to be constructive here.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:08, 6 June 2010 (EDT)