SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Conservapedia:Community Portal (view source)
Revision as of 23:21, February 5, 2015
, 23:21, February 5, 2015→What I don't want to happen: close to agreement
I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
I have asked Karajou to make sure that Wsacht does not mess with TAR's material and create a lot of unnecessary, extra work for TAR due to Wsacht disagreeing with TARs political/economic views. I don't think CP liberals should dictate the ideology at CP so it conforms with liberalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:31, 5 February 2015 (EST)
:Thank you for sharing your concerns in an open candid way, and I will respond with equal candor.
:1. We are close to agreement here, but minor editing is necessary to bring some articles up to Manual of Style standards and the category tree structure needs repair.
:2. If Cons or TAR want to write essays expressing personal views on survivalism or giving advice, I will defend their right to do so. Similarly, if we take a team approach to writing objective, consensus articles on survivalism, Conservapedia will benefit as well. The conservative movement has a wide spectrum of view as do the survivalists. There are some survivalist who advocate immediate action due to the imminent collapse of Western civilization. Some of these advocate succession of "Cascadia" from the United States, and others advocate an separate all-white nation in the Pacific Northwest. Those views are beyond accepted conservative thought, because conservatives seek to improve society and the social order rather than to destroy it. Articles discussing preparedness for natural disasters or emergencies would help Conservapedia. Current Conservapedia policy does not allow for advertisements or how-to manual articles. So, I think we are very close to an agreement here.
:3. The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution for 200 years, and I have not seen anyone on Conservapedia attack it. However, materials added to existing articles should be relevant, well-sourced and comply with the Manual of Style. One does not advocate for the Second Amendment by adding a category to every page on Conservapedia. If the person covered by a biography article favors gun rights, then add a sentence to the article preferably with a footnote. Same holds for gun rights opponents. If an article is about a brand of rifle, put "rifle" in the title. If the article is about just ammunition, make that clear as well. If TAR wants to write an article about a gun company, I suggest he use [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Gun_Company the Wikipedia article on Ithaca Gun Company] as a model. I have no objection to TAR moving over a lot of detailed articles providing reference materials on guns, so long as they are accurate and comply with the Manual of Style. I welcome people writing about things that interest them, including guns.
:So, I think we are mostly in agreement. Karajou, Cons and I have all advised TAR to focus on writing longer articles rather than just one or two sentences followed by a lot of "See also" links and category lists. I am not objecting to the subjects TAR has chosen, but rather the way TAR adds "See also" and categories into what appear to me to be unrelated articles. Possibly TAR may see a relationship that I can't, but that means that he should add a sentence or paragraph explaining to the reader those implications and relationships.
:I would welcome TAR back with the hope that he can clean up his many edits from December and January. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 18:21, 5 February 2015 (EST)
== Merge candidates ==
== Merge candidates ==