Difference between revisions of "User talk:Esseph"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Thanks, Joshua. I edit sparingly to avoid wars, but do try to weed out the most egregiously biased comments. I would like to strip out all the nonsense about atheism and obesity, but I think I know where that would land me. -- [[User:Esseph|Esseph]] 12:54, 29 July 2012 (EDT) | :Thanks, Joshua. I edit sparingly to avoid wars, but do try to weed out the most egregiously biased comments. I would like to strip out all the nonsense about atheism and obesity, but I think I know where that would land me. -- [[User:Esseph|Esseph]] 12:54, 29 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::The wiki does need more people interested in cleaning up the grammar. I personally try to keep my edits more NPOV but that's just a habit learned, a preference of my own. I don't mind Conservapedia having strong opinions on atheism or other issues, it's actually kind of refreshing compared to Wikipedia where you know a lot of editors have biases in refusing to focus on the facts and sources, and just claiming consensus - at least here they are more out in the open. And it's nice that people stand for what they believe in rather than pretending that having a point of view is wrong. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Joshua Zambrano]] 13:28, 29 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:28, July 29, 2012
Good Edit
Just wanted to commend you on the Daniel Dennett page edit, that was good work cleaning up some typos - fixing "apologetists" was a good catch. --Joshua Zambrano 12:40, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
- Thanks, Joshua. I edit sparingly to avoid wars, but do try to weed out the most egregiously biased comments. I would like to strip out all the nonsense about atheism and obesity, but I think I know where that would land me. -- Esseph 12:54, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
- The wiki does need more people interested in cleaning up the grammar. I personally try to keep my edits more NPOV but that's just a habit learned, a preference of my own. I don't mind Conservapedia having strong opinions on atheism or other issues, it's actually kind of refreshing compared to Wikipedia where you know a lot of editors have biases in refusing to focus on the facts and sources, and just claiming consensus - at least here they are more out in the open. And it's nice that people stand for what they believe in rather than pretending that having a point of view is wrong. --Joshua Zambrano 13:28, 29 July 2012 (EDT)