User talk:Rleonardw

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pages edited:


Useful links


Hello, Rleonardw, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Rleonardw!

Hello, and thanks for your work here at Conservapedia. I do wish to point out, though, that unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not attempt to maintain a neutral point of view (NPV) as Wikipedia claims to do. Therefore, sometimes we honestly let out bias show. The edits I saw from you on Obama's Religion‎ looked good to me (though I haven't had the time to check them all) but your edits on Wikipedia might not be as beneficial. There any man cases (some of which we have documented) where Wikipedia has taken some very evil and/or deceitful stances. I may revert one or more of your edits to this latter page, since we seek to point out some of these problems. No one is perfect, but sometimes it seems Wikipedia is trying not to be perfect.

Please feel free and welcome to contribute here, but please also avoid inserting a liberal or "neutral" points of view in articles on politics such as these. We are not trying to be Wikipedia, but to be more accurate than Wikipedia, based on the Conservative viewpoint. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --David B (TALK) 18:29, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks David B. Like the postmodernists I appreciate that a neutral point of view is only an ideal, but surely it should be attempted. I have found the personal point of view is cultivated excessively in the articles that I have looked at here, whereas this is frequently challenged on Wikipedia. But I thought that neutral point of view is mandated in the Conservapedia's "Commandments": (5) "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry".

I have more recently commented that I find the Obama's Religion‎ article extremely unpleasant, indeed this article would be a national scandal if one was to substitute the word Jew for Muslim. It reminds me of America's sorry record at the time of the Red Scare 1919-21.

By the way the article on the Red Scare is very far from neutral. I must check the Wikipedia version and see if it's equally extreme in its point of view; possibly it lacks sufficient comment from the extreme right?

Re Wikipedia, I too have found some unpleasant editors and administrators, but some of the comments in the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia were truly laughable.

Re evil editors on Wikipedia, what I find truly evil is the attitude towards Muslims expressed on the Obama page, and I see a direct correlation between such negativity and yesterday's massacre in Quebec. I'll be interested to see what your new President has to say about this terrorist act. Rleonardw (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Sad to say David B there is no real Christian empathy in Trumps comments, as far as I can see. Rleonardw (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (EST)
If you are looking for evil editors on Wikipedia, consider the lesbian consort of one of the WMF Board members who has been allowed to engage in off-wiki harrassment of editors with impunity. JDano (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (EST)