Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Leaving: To Sid
::And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a ''troll site'' (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a ''straw man''.
::And how about CP's awesome reputation that makes editors want to contribute? Liberals think that CP is a ''troll site'' (literally - ask Conservative, he's the one to thank for that), conservatives just look at the "The Bible needs to be retranslated into Conservative English!" project and shake their heads, and when Dawkins mentioned Andy's little Lenski episode in his book, a Creationist site accused him of attacking a ''straw man''.
::Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Conservapedia was founded more than four years ago. Look at the site in its current state, look at its history, and then ask yourself whether you can afford to drive away people who did no harm just because they didn't do exactly what you expected them to do. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:15, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::It is due to my respect for your early contributions to discussion about the purpose and policies of this site that I will take what you've said at face value, even though in this rebuttal itself you are violating site policy.
:::#You say I resorted to an excuse. I suppose you feel I had an ulterior motive in mind for blocking Rellek. If so, what do you imagine it was? Rellek promised to write some articles, and when asked to make good on his promise he gave the phony excuse of not having time (although he had plenty of time to argue for changes in site policy).
:::#I know it may sound arrogant, but I've found that users who will offer a writing plan turn out to be good contributors; those who balk or refuse are more quickly revealed to have motives contrary to those of this project. I might have "driven away" a user or two at Wikipedia, but with tens of thousands of writers ready to replace them I hope I may be forgiven for my haste there. Here, in contrast, most new users come to undermine the project. They must be weeded out. If you support the idea of creating a trustworthy encyclopedia, you'll no doubt be in favor or excluding those who want to make it untrustworthy.
:::#Announcing a list of topics is not a writing plan. I'd like more detail, such as an article name (at least). I wanted to know whether "he" came here primarily to persuade us to change our goals or policies. Such people are free to contribute to our debate topics (where they'll get as much attention as they merit). They are not free to waste our time. I'll pay more attention to those with a track record of useful contributions. (You're a special case, because you epitomize and therefore represent the opposition.)
:::Name-calling is hardly called for, and in this case inaccurate. Your "loose cannon" remark does not fit someone who allows another sysop to undo a block, or who is willing to explain site policy.
:::I intend to do my best to make people who come here to undermine our goals feel unwelcome. If there were a social dance at the local high school, and someone wanted to turn it into a debate, the principal would kick him out of the building, whether he we enrolled there or not. There is a time and a place for everything.
:::I need not answer all your points, but I'll just make my annual appeal to the "loyal opposition".
:::*If you want to add critical commentary to article, you are welcome to do so provided you adhere to editorial policy. It's so simple that you can't pretend you don't know it already: merely say that X said Y about Z. (Same as Wikipedia! :-)
:::If any contributor, especially a sysop, stymies your efforts, please drop me a note on my talk page. I won't stand for any ideoligical censorship. If there is any point, important or trivial, serious or silly, which another contributor censors from an article - merely because it's a liberal (or "rational") idea, let me know. I will show you how to describe it in a fair, objective and trustworthy manner - or if you can't learn how, I may choose to do it myself.
:::Unlike Wikipedia, we do not censor opposing ideas; we describe them; we attribute them to their advocates.
:::Unlike Wikipedia, we do not tolerate cabals of subversives who gave the system to undermine our purpose.
:::Now if you remember me and trust me, you can help me build the world's most trustworthy encyclopedia. Or you can giggle into your hand and pretend to be a frustrated reformer. The choice is yours. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
== Rebuttal Rebuttal ==
== Rebuttal Rebuttal ==