Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (outdated entry)
(→‎Deletion of article by Conservative: This isn't about abuse but is just a question of editorial direction. Don't use "abuse" as a code word for "I disagree with you editorially")
Line 9: Line 9:
  
  
−
== Deletion of article by Conservative ==
 
  
−
I wrote an article called "Abortion Attitudes" that was immediately deleted by Conservative.  The article simply stated the results of polls about Americans attitudes about abortion.  He or she claimed that it "wasn't nuanced enought" or some such nonsense.
 
−
 
−
He could have edited it to make it more nuanced.  [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
 
−
 
−
Please respond.
 
−
::See my message to you at: [[User talk:Wismike]].  Here is what I wrote: "I don't mind you doing United States abortion attitudes article or worldwide abortion attitudes article but please do a decent article. For example, Do people favor some restrictions? If so what restrictions? How have abortion attitudes changed over time"  I don't think you made a very good attempt at creating a good article and I think it was intentional. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 3 August 2007 (EDT)‎
 
−
 
−
This is his criticism:
 
−
 
−
"I don't mind you doing United States abortion attitudes article or worldwide abortion attitudes article but please do a decent article. For example, Do people favor some restrictions? If so what restrictions? How have abortion attitudes changed over time?"
 
−
 
−
The article actually did say what restrictions people favored and specifically stated restrictions on "partial birth abortion".  It also stated that some people would allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or the life/health of the mother.  The implication being that they would restrict abortions otherwise.
 
−
 
−
A random walk through maybe 10 pages brings up these articles that are ridiculously "un nuanced" or short: Totalitarian State, Boolean Algebra, Pajama Media and Henry Cisnero's.
 
−
 
−
Maybe Totalitarian State should be edited to include Conservapedia as an example. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
 
−
 
−
:::Wismike, your abortion attitudes article stunk.  It only gave precise stats for the things you wanted to highlight and was vague about what you didn't want to highlight.  When you are serious about creating a good article on the subject let us know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::I would ask you to prove your allegations that my article "stunk" and that I only gave precise stats for things that I wanted to highlight.  Was my article so grammatically incorrect as to be unreadable?  I didn't save my own article but I believe that I gave a range of stats for each item that I highlighted.  I also provided a link to the source so that the readers or future editors would have access to the same statistics.  Why don't you let the article stand and let others criticize or edit it's content?  [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
 
−
 
−
:::::[[Liberal mercaptans]] are easily discernable.  [http://www.mflohc.mb.ca/fact_sheets_folder/mercaptans.html]  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:03, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*This is not a debate site. If a senior editor says you were stacking the deck, I'm inclined to accept his judgment over yours. A possible rebuttal would have been, "But I included THIS for balance." Demanding "proof" is a sly way of shifting the burden.
 
−
*All edits must be trustworthy, which means the burden of proof is on YOU. Poor edits will be removed. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:50, 8 August 2007 (EDT)\
 
−
 
−
 
−
::This is my final post on this matter.  So far I have been told that my article "stinks", that I am a "whiner", that I stink like rotten cabbage (see mercaptan) and I have been blocked from editing for 3 days.
 
−
 
−
::Ed - If you read through this entire discussion, my original rebuttal was that I in fact did include information for balance.  I am only asking for proof from Conservative because the article was deleted so quickly that unfortunately, I can offer no proof myself.  That seems to put the burden of proof on him. 
 
−
 
−
::I have reread the "Conservapedia Commandments" and as far as I can tell, I have not violated any of them either by the article that I wrote or by the entries that I have made on the debate pages.  At the same time, I have been insulted and unfairly criticized.  I say unfairly criticized because it is clear that no other sysops have even read my article but they have been quick to jump in and make declarations about the quality or content of it.
 
−
 
−
::I guess thats all.  Sincerely  [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
 
−
 
−
*Why would you assume none of us have read the article?  I tried to email you a copy of it, which you say you don't have, but you have not entered your email address so that I can.  My contact information is listed on my user page.  You can get at me on AIM if you would like. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 13:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
 
  
 
== Why don't you delete the recently added article about [[Woody Allen]]? ==
 
== Why don't you delete the recently added article about [[Woody Allen]]? ==

Revision as of 20:55, August 15, 2007

Back to the Desk

Abuse Complaints
Archives:1





Why don't you delete the recently added article about Woody Allen?

That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. Wismike

There is a difference between a biography and a piece dealing with opinion information. I believe if you were to create small biographies on notable people that you would not see your work removed. I also believe that you are probably aware of the difference, but are complaining simply because you do not like it. Learn together 13:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I really don't disagree with you. Sysop Conservative originally stated that my article was not "nuanced". By pointing out some articles that are very small, incomplete and lop-sided I was trying to show that writing an "un-nuanced" article was not cause for deletion, it is cause for editing. Also, this particular article on Woody Allen is only a biography in disguise. When the only thing you can highlight about the life and career of a celebrated and revered actor, writer and director is that he married his 27 years old adopted daughter, it is an opinion piece. Respectfully Wismike
Woody Allen is an important biographical figure and isn't going to be deleted (of course). The beauty of this site is that you can add Woody's accomplishments in other areas and fill out his biopgraphy. But please understand as well that in a site that wishes to provide a family values environment, that Woody's conduct that could be considered to have gone over that line is fair game. On the other hand, articles that by their very nature deal with opinion information can be held to a different standard. Conservative is a trusted and respected Sysop who has many thousands of edits and has contributed greatly to the Conservapedia site. It may be best to work with what he told you to create an article that can address his concerns. And, as you also see, your concerns are being taken seriously. A number of important Sysops have given their input, and TK has even tried to email you your original work. While it is sometimes difficult, the key is not to take the article removal personally, but to work with the information you have been given to produce a more universally accepted product. Learn together 14:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse&oldid=268066"