|
|
| (243 intermediate revisions by 57 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | I will do that sir
| + | {{User:Geo.plrd/Header}} |
| − | | + | {{User:Geo.plrd/email}} |
| − | Aight dawg, my bizzad.
| + | {{User:Geo.plrd/archives}} |
| − | | |
| − | Nice revision to the Eisenhower entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 4 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | We don't have a "U.S. President" entry yet. Please create one! (You can do that by entering the term in the "Find" box and, when it is not found, click the link to create one.) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | You just made a good, subtle edit with respect to "Al Qaeda" and the 9/11 attacks. Well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 5 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Good move of Bill Clinton to his real name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Actually, Mr. Schlafly, I think the move was done by Dpbsmith. But, Geo, your edits and template-making-skills have been more than helpful. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | :I am pretty sure I moved it. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | Tremendous edits! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 5 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Welcome to the SYSOP group! Please help block vandals when we reopen registration.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:36, 6 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thank you. Will I go to hell for braking them? [[User:Sane|Sane]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Geo, Thanks for Blocking user "Gimp". I happened across his edits of "Christian God" and undid them. Vandalism like this needs to be blocked. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 01:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Einstein and rollback ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | A word- on most Wikiprojects the use of the admin roll back toll can be considered rude when not dealing directly with vandalism or disruption. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Okay. [[User:Sane|Sane]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Mexico ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Try clicking on the link you gave me, it redirects to a page called "404.shtml". --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:31, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Geo ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I see that you mentioned you were going to unblock Oedipus Rex. I don't know what he posted but certainly his user id. is suspect, and the person who blocked rarely blocks anyone. Are you sure you were able to review deleted pages that might not show up any longer on "Revised Changes"? I'd recommend being cautious about unblocking someone blocked for obscenity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Unblocking ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Click on the page where you would normally block the user, there should be a link there to an "unblock" form. Click on that and fill it out. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Is your unblocking of Koronus temporary or permanent? He vandalized many pages a week ago, including the placement of an obscene image on my User Page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Never mind, I see what you've done. Cool. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Block times ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | If an editor's behavior is so bad that you don't want them to edit ever again, there's no need to do something like a year block, just do an indefinite block. Meanwhile, on most Wikis I'm a member of, deliberately temporary blocks for first offenders are generally much shorter, ranging from about 8 hours to 1 week depending on the project and severity of the offense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | I'd say an infinite ban after parole is broken. I'm for being lenient and giving second chances, but we'll need to have a lot of people watching for vandals. My hope is that most people will just forget if they aren't serious about helping.
| |
| − | I think if we do institute a parole policy there should be some way to mark people on parole so that if they commit a violation (say, something they write needs rollback) the sysop doing this can see and ban them. --[[User:John|John]] 23:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Sorry ==
| |
| − | One of my students misused the account. It won't happen again. Please see my discussion page. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:06, 9 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Template for AFD==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Do we have a template to stick on top of articles that are under AFD? Thanks. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The article is [[Quote mining]] see my AFD [[AFD Quote mining]]. Good luck with this project, enjoyed working with most of you. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Change to ACLU ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Hey Geo,
| |
| − | A while ago you suggested that I write to you with my proposed addition to the ACLU article, about what good the ACLU has done. Sorry it's taken so long, but it's included below
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | The ACLU & the Fight Against Racism (make this a section heading, please?)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Along with the [[NAACP]], led at the time by [[Thursgood Marshall]], the ACLU briefed and argued many influential Supreme Court opinions that led to the eradication of legal segregation.<ref>Examples: [[Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483]]</ref> They have continued to defend racial equality since.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice</ref> Even recently, the ACLU fought to overturn prohibitions against renting buildings to immigrants<ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/ss/news082206_3.htm</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | Additionally, you really need to edit out the language indicating that the author of the Dover case, Judge Jones, relied on a court opinion that was reversed (the ''Cobb'' case). First, I'm a Georgian so I know firsthand about the case. The appeal was actually dropped, leaving the pro-evolution lower court holding intact.[http://www.nebscience.org/cobb.html]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Second, I'm a law student, so I know that "vacated and remanded" means "come back with more info, we can't decide this," while "reversed" means "Lower Court, you were wrong." Equating the two sends the message that the higher court indicated that the lower court's pro-evolution Cobb opinion was wrongly decided; despite your personal feelings, no high court has said so, and the case was dropped.
| |
| − | | |
| − | --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Thanks for adding the Racism section!!
| |
| − | | |
| − | : On the "vacate" thing, two points.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : First of all, note that the appeal was dropped, discontinuing appellate review. I cited to it above, you can see the website for yourself. So that renders moot the distinction between "reverse" and "vacate."
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Second, the difference between is plain from any Black's Law Dictionary. Vacate & Remand means to nullify the judgment pending renewed appellate review, and this action, importantly, '''passes no judgment "on the merits" of the lower court's opinion.''' Reversal explicitly passes judgment on the merits. The line in the ACLU article as it stands suggests that the higher court reviewed the lower court's opinion "on the merits" and disagreed, which it did not. It simply barred enforcement of the judgment until the appeal was completed, based on an incomplete list of trial docs.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : The "on the merits" distinction is critical. While you can no longer enforce a judgment that's been vacated, that does not necessarily imply that the lower court opinion is no longer ''good law.'' Depending on the procedural posture, it may still be good law. Check the case, and you'll see that the higher court intended it to still be good law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Oh, and aside from that, I think the unbiased nature of the article remains highly in doubt. First off, there is no "gay agenda" anymore than there is a "black agenda" or a "female agenda" - none of those groups are unified political entities, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I think "agenda" should be stricken from the topic heading, to avoid sounding too pejorative.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
| |
| − | (I'm adding this here as it was mentioned I should over in the ACLU/talk page.) The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
| |
| − | http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 08:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Adding a link to the opinion, which '''does''' disprove the part of the ACLU article that I've consistently told you is wrong, does not excuse the continued presence of false and misleading statements in the body of the article. I still recommend you strike the statements, or modify them. I'll help you draft them if you want.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Mainpage, "Articles to be improved" ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement|Articles to be improved]]? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] noted the case ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and applying the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Judge John E. Jones]] has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the [[Discovery Institute]], an institution that filed ''amicus curiae'' briefs in the case.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The allegation is a partial truth.<ref>This is true with regards to Judge Jones' statements in the early parts of the opinion manifesting his agreement with the ACLU's briefs, but the legal reasoning of the case - constituting the bulk of the opinion - is all original. ''See generally Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 707.</ref>The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with [[civil procedure]] protocol, totalling over $2 million.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ----
| |
| − | | |
| − | I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about ''Selman'' being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.
| |
| − | | |
| − | If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail (ames@nyu.edu) or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : So...?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Request ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'm having image upload troubles; If it's not a hassle, could you please upload the image [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Choco_chip_cookie.jpg here] and let me know where you put it? I want to use it in the welcome template. Thanks! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Fire in the Reichstag ==
| |
| − | This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But as the statement as it is now is simplistic can can better be removed. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Enjoy ==
| |
| − | Enjoy yourself here since everybody on Wikipedia knows you are a vain useless non contributor. [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 01:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | :Hows teh arb cabal? [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Examples of Bias in Conservapedia ==
| |
| − | Here's a non-obscene version, I hope it meets your standards and is not censored like most non-Conservative content. *edit: ugh, formatting problems, sorry*
| |
| − | | |
| − | The growing list of examples of bias and errors on [[Conservapedia]]. Please add to this.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 1. Conservapedia condemns the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. despite B.C.E. and C.E. being the recognized standard world-wide. The change was made to not alienate other cultures around the world, since using B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) is supposed to be an international standard, not an American standard only.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 2. Conservapedia gives credit to America, Christianity (sometimes radical Christianity and Creationism), and Conservative views, many times forgetting other factors involved, other countries, other religions, and other points of view. On the main page, Conservapedia even says that "Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America". However, often full credit is not due to either Christianity or America, the world does not revolve around Christian Americans.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 3. Conservapedia claims it is correcting the Liberal bias found in Wikipedia, yet Wikipedia shows both sides of possible debates in the majority of their articles. Conservapedia on the other hand only includes the arguments for the conservative view, and Christian view. Conservapedia, while claiming to be less biased, includes an article called "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which slanders Wikipedia in many ways, often giving incorrect information and irrelevant arguments against its articles.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 4. Conservapedia lets anyone with a Conservative, Christian point of view to edit their pages, but any edits done from another point of view are removed, while Wikipedia lets anyone from any point of view edit their pages, and payed experts and scientists edit and make changes to keep the information extremely accurate.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 5. Conservapedia claims that twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative compared to Liveral, while three times as many editors identify themselves as Liveral as compared to Conservative on Wikipedia. However, the fact that 2/3 of Americans are Conservative does not mean that all information should be adjusted to have an approximate 2/3 bias towards Conservatives, facts are facts. Also, the fact that 3/4 editors on Wikipedia are Liberal means nothing since they are professionals, and are payed to remain unbiased while they make changes with legitimate sources. There is no logic, truth, or relevance in saying that Wikipedia is 6 times more Liberal than the American public, and we also must remember than Wikipedia is meant for the entire world, not just Americans.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 6. Conservapedia also condemns Wikipedia for claiming 1.5 million articles, but not all of them being useful. However, Wikipedia never claimed that their articles were educational. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which contains information about anything and everything.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 7. Conservapedia restricts editing of many pages that are considered to be controversial, but some of these pages are purely restricted because visitors with non-conservative, non-christian, or non-american views correct the biased material.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 8. The majority of articles about animals include an amazingly short stub of relevant information (generally the animal's description), while the last 80% of the article or so is all about the creation of said animal. In most cases, the creation section of these articles only includes the views of Creationists, and there is little to no mention of Evolution, despite the evidence supporting it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 9. In more than one case, Evolution is also thrown aside and discarded with completely false information about the dating of fossils being incorrect, despite the method of dating fossils (carbon dating) being incredibly accurate. Evolution is generally thrown aside because the fossil evidence proving the Earth's age is at least several million years old (if not several billion), conflicts with the views of Young Earth Creationists. Evolution is also discarded because of the apparent lack of mid-evolution evidence, despite there being many examples of such.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 10. References are seldomly cited, even on the most popular of pages, and when they are cited, they often include very little literature and many websites which are statistically much less accurate. The majority of the time, if there are sources, most if not all of the sources will be relating only to the Christian/Creationist, Conservative, American point of view, therefore anything written about the other side of any possible debates are being written with no sources, and the sources used for the Conservative side of the debate are almost always extremely biased.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 11. On the main page, the Conservapedia claims that it includes 4,700 educational articles that are student-friendly. However, the majority of the articles are extremely short stubs with few to no references that show only a single point of view. Also, the majority of the articles are written with poor grammar and a low grade reading level, which is hardly appropriate for student use.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 12. Conservapedia has since edited the following statement which was included on the main page: "Conservapedia has over 4,100 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, including more than 350 lectures and term lists." However, to claim that Conservapedia is scientific when it often states that the Theory of Evolution is incorrect solely because "there is no evidence" or that it's "just a theory" despite fossil evidence and many animals, including humans backing up this theory, is very unscientific.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 13. Conservapedia also displays is bias through the use of American spelling of words only, and in fact points out that Wikipedia uses the "foreign" spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. This is true, however the English language was derived in England - where the spelling of words most certainly is correct if they invented the language. The so called "foreign" spelling of English words on Wikipedia is in fact correct for the rest of the world, and it should not have to cater to any country which uses different spelling which is in fact an altered version of the original, correct, English language. The fact that Wikipedia redirects to the original English spelling of American words shows that they are serving the entire world, and it is in fact conveniant for everyone in this case.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 14. Articles such as the one on Kangaroos, and the one on Dinosaurs have ridiculous claims which are used solely to support the Young Earth Creationist view. For example, the article states that from the Origins Theory Model that Kangaroos originated in the Middle East. However, Kangaroos would have had absolutely no way of travelling as far as they would need to during Pangea to end up in Australia, and even moreso after Pangea. Kangaroos can only live in a certain climate, and it is physically impossible for them to have originated in the Middle East. The only references are to Christian and Creationist websites, which are extremely biased and try as hard as they can to prove that their ideas are the one and only correct ones. The article on dinosaurs is similar, and has very little about dinosaurs living millions of years ago. Instead, the article focuses on how creationists believe that fossil evidence is incorrect because of dating methods (even though this is physically impossible to be incorrect, since carbon dating is extremely precise). There are no references citing where these fossil records could possibly be proven wrong in any way, and even mentions that the Young Earth Creationists believe this primarily because of biblical sources, which can hardly be used as a reference. Once again the only other references cite Creationist and Christian websites only. There is absolutely no mention of even the possibility of an ice age, a meteor, or anything else relevant, it is purely talk about Creationism, and to try and support its claims it says there is even a possibility that these dinosaurs still live on Earth without us seeing them (even with satellite technology somehow).
| |
| − | | |
| − | 15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Note on item 5. of the list on bias ==
| |
| − | Conservapedia observed correctly there are about twice as many conservatives than liberals in the American population. If you would have followed the link to the poll, you would have found that Conservapedia, or Aschlafly, forgot to mention the moderates. 2/5 th of all Americans are moderate, 1/3 conservative, and 1/5th liberals (and the remaining 1/15th have no opinion, apparently). So a ratio of 2:1 conservatices vs liberals, does not mean that 2/3rd are conservative. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 20:45 (AEST)
| |
| − | ::The ratio is completely irrelevant. The point is, facts are facts, and Wikipedia and Conservapedia should not be attempting to cater to a particular preference of the majority of Americans. Especially when the articles are available globally.--[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::: If the ratio are irrelevant, why do we use them. It just make us look bad, like we fudge numbers as we please. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007 10:30 (AEST)
| |
| − | :::: I'm not sure why Conservapedia tried to use them to discredit Wikipedia, ask the creator. Either way, using statistics in that way, whether correct or not, is misleading and irrelevant. It proves absolutely nothing. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | ::::: Well, it is also not true that more Americans are conservative than liberal. Most Americans are pro-choice, over half of all Americans think that gays should be granted some kind of partnership rights, most Americans support social security, most Americans trust Democrats more on issues such as education, economics. In most recent polls more Americans trust Democras on national security issues than they do Republicans. And if we define conservativism the way that this site does, than it represents a very small minority of American opinion.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Your participation would be welcomed at the newly created [[Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive]]. Please contact me with any questions, I think this can be a great idea! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Question about edits ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Hey, I didn't get a reply on the abuse page so I wanted to run this by you... since i think you're the one that archived it"
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'll be honest, I can't tell if [[User:Pwaynes]] is editing in good faith or is a subtle vandal. Here they are in full [2] and here are some of his edits:
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[Democratic Party]]: "Historically, however, the Democrats have neglected national defense, leaving America weaker."
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[women]] putting quotes around "Christian" churches that believe women should not have to submit to their husbands.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[Barack Obama]]: "Commentators have noted that he has many strikes against him in the eyes of the American people. He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times."
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[Bill Clinton]]: Removing the fact that Clinton was never charged in the whitewater scandal. (He also removed the fact that GWB didn't receive a majority or a plurality of the vote in 2000 but that was irrelevant anyway).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[censorship]]: "and is often justified as the material in question is usual obscene, pornographic, satanic, or otherwise harmful."
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[George H.W. Bush]]: "The Bush dynasty is generally considered to be one of the greatest american political families, along with the Adams. This is in contrast to the irresponsible and wreckless Kennedy family."
| |
| − | | |
| − | These statements are all unsourced... as the bias implicated is opposed to my bias but possibly in line with the website, I leave it up to you to decide if these are in good faith. Myk 18:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Since I reported this:
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[New York(state)]] : "It is a widely recognized liberal hotbed."
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[Pachactui]] : Pachactui is a fictional Japanese Pokemon. He is a yellow, electric, mouse-like creature, and is known for shouting "Pachactui!" OK... this is definitely vandalism as he is clearly referencing Pikachu. Still, I would like to know if the others are vandalism also so I know what to report.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Anyways... all of his edits are of the same tone. Were this wikipedia, I would have no qualms about reverting 90% of his edits... but maybe that is my liberal bias. What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? Oh, and he's removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. Myk 21:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thanks [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Your Hitler edit ==
| |
| − | Sorry to say this, but your last Hitler display a rather naive and erroneous understanding of the history of the 3rd Reich. As the article is now, you can better revert it to the version from a few days ago. Even though it is very short, it manages to mispresent a lot of things. --[[User:Order|Order]] 18 March, 10:00 (AEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Thanks for unlocking. But I am not sure how to fix it. It is just too much. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 18:00 (AEST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Anarchocapitalism==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Why did you delete the article? It's a legitimate entry. It is an economic belief that is fairly widespread within Libertarian circles. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Your reversal of the re-direction was very correct, btw. I took out some of the bias/inaccuracy, and left it as a stub. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | You didn't. The user in question definitely went too far. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == MossyKate ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I really enjoyed the reason you gave for blocking "MossyKate". That made me laugh out loud! Great block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
| |
