Conservapedia talk:Abuse

Someone else look at User:RightWolf2, Talk:Wikipedia, Wikipedia, please

I'm not objective because I've been editing the article myself. It seems to me that User:RightWolf2 has the impression that unsupported opinion is OK as long as it's conservative opinion, and is at least near the borderline of Conservapedia Commandment #6. It particularly bothers me that, in order to support the statement that

"[Wikipedia's] Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community."

he cites http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ although the link page contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Perhaps there is relevant material on that site, but it's his job to find it and cite it, not to keep reinserting a link to this site's home page. Dpbsmith 16:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia-Watch is Daniel Brandt's site. I don't know if it states that outright, but I try and look into it. RobS 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html I think is what he is refering to. RobS 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The word "homosexual" isn't on that page, either. Only one reference to "gay," an assertion that a Wikipedia administrator "attempt[ed] to falsely suggest that Brandt is gay."

My objection is not that he's citing a strongly anti-Wikipedian website, although this should probably be made clear. The question is: does the site really say what he says it says, and, if so, where? Dpbsmith 19:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that's right; what the editor is probably suggesting is if someone did the actual leg work of checking those users cited on that list, they would come up with a high percentage disproportionate to the general population of people who openly confess to being gay. Of course this, in Wikipedia, would be considered Original research. RobS 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Current Alerts

We need to make sure that we removed current alerts after they have been handled. I propose that once someone has addressed a current alert, we only leave it up for a day max, because the current alert section is getting messy with comments.--Elamdri 20:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I also moved Current Alerts to the Top of the page, so we don't have to dig to find them.

• Excellent! --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 02:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

What happened here

Goodness! Whatever happend here? --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The page was archived, TK. Use the little history button at the top of the page. Myk 02:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I archived the page, as it was too large. Geo.Talk 02:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of large...that Conservative Abuse page is very much too long! I shall archive it now. Gee, I hope I do it right...anyone wanna say how to do it correctly? Or maybe somone wants to do it themself? :p --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• I see the helpfulness is overflowing, and once again proving my point. A few who consider themselves "elite" will never offer help or information, because they like their positions of knowing the Wiki so well, they can supplant their ideas for the majority of the users. --~ TK ^MyTalk 16:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This sure seems like “criticize[ing] without solutions” [1]. I was under the impression that “Criticism, without offering a solution...is unacceptable behavior.” [2] I mean you posted your question less than 24 hours ago and “We don't have a running clock here, demanding instant action.” [3]--Reginod 19:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• Exactly, as opposed to being rat packed instantly with criticism. Yes, you have it right. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)