Talk:Guy Chapman
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I don't know much about the WP community, so I found this page interesting. If I may make a suggestion, though, this piece seems to be written from a first-person perspective at times. For example, rather than stating "[t]here seems to be an unwritten rule on Wikipedia that the written rules apply only to ordinary editors and not to administrators" you might want to try something like, "It seems to some that there is an unwritten rule on Wikipedia that the written rules apply only to ordinary editors and not to administrators." I suggest you just try to make it more objective. Thanks for the contribution! --David B (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2016 (EDT)
- Thank you for your constructive comments. On reflection, I feel that Guy may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article in Conservapedia. He is a typical example of a Wikipedia administrator with a strong liberal bias and there are many other Wikipedia administrators just like him. I have been thinking of asking for my article to be deleted and of replacing it with a more general article on Wikipedia administrators. What is your view on this, please? It is a great pleasure to be able to have a civilized discussion with you, without the insults and foul language which are so prevalent on Wikipedia. Desmonduk (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (EDT)
- You know Wikipedia better than I, so I can't give you a definite answer. In my opinion, most people would probably find a general article in which specific admins are referenced more interesting and useful than one or more articles on specific people. However, if Guy is more influential than most, at article on him wouldn't hurt. If you wish to have this deleted, then feel free to do so, but it's up to you. (If so, just add {{Delete}} or {{Delete Notice}} to the page.) Since it already is written, my inclination would be to revise this a little to make it more encyclopedia-like than make a new page to talk about WP admins, and possibly link back to this page. However, if you think a lot of work would be needed to change this page, it might not be worth the bother.
- On the one hand we're not here to bash Wikipedia (or at least I'm not), but on the other hand we should explain why Wikipedia is not as good as people think and therefore why we exist as an alternative. I think making pages on all or many of the admins would be over-kill, but if this one and even some others are very influential, it wouldn't hurt.
- I'm glad we can have a civilized discussion as well! I'd like to think that as conservatives and in many cases, Christians, we could maintain a higher standard that WP. That's not to say I'm anything special, of course. Again, thanks for your work, and keep it up! :) --David B (talk) xx:xx, 29 March 2016 (EDT)
- You're welcome--any time! If I notice anything that I think could use improvement, I'll be happy to let you know. Feel free to do likewise for me, too! If you feel there is good reason for being judgemental, then feel free to put it down. Of course, avoid ad hominem attacks, and back up what you say with proof and references where possible. Since this is an encyclopedia of sorts, I suggest you always write with a neutral, third-person voice. For example, instead of saying, "This man is a tyrannical liberal who forces his point of view on others." try something more like "Many people see this man as tyrannical liberal who forces his point of view on others." This site and it's content is from a conservative view point, but offer subjective information as an opinion, rather than saying outright that it is the truth. In other words, let the reader make their own judgements. If you want to state subjective information as fact, you probably will want to make it as essay, which can be just about any suitable argument, explanation, or rant. I hope I'm making sense and not just rambling here...