Conservapedia talk:Abuse

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AppliedFaith (Talk | contribs) at 18:38, April 15, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I'm not objective because I've been editing the article myself. It seems to me that User:RightWolf2 has the impression that unsupported opinion is OK as long as it's conservative opinion, and is at least near the borderline of Conservapedia Commandment #6. It particularly bothers me that, in order to support the statement that

"[Wikipedia's] Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community."

he cites although the link page contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Perhaps there is relevant material on that site, but it's his job to find it and cite it, not to keep reinserting a link to this site's home page. Dpbsmith 16:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia-Watch is Daniel Brandt's site. I don't know if it states that outright, but I try and look into it. RobS 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
This here I think is what he is refering to. RobS 17:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The word "homosexual" isn't on that page, either. Only one reference to "gay," an assertion that a Wikipedia administrator "attempt[ed] to falsely suggest that Brandt is gay."
My objection is not that he's citing a strongly anti-Wikipedian website, although this should probably be made clear. The question is: does the site really say what he says it says, and, if so, where? Dpbsmith 19:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's right; what the editor is probably suggesting is if someone did the actual leg work of checking those users cited on that list, they would come up with a high percentage disproportionate to the general population of people who openly confess to being gay. Of course this, in Wikipedia, would be considered Original research. RobS 19:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Current Alerts

We need to make sure that we removed current alerts after they have been handled. I propose that once someone has addressed a current alert, we only leave it up for a day max, because the current alert section is getting messy with comments.--Elamdri 20:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I also moved Current Alerts to the Top of the page, so we don't have to dig to find them.

What happened here

Goodness! Whatever happend here? --~ TK MyTalk 02:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The page was archived, TK. Use the little history button at the top of the page. Myk 02:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I archived the page, as it was too large. Geo.Talk 02:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of large...that Conservative Abuse page is very much too long! I shall archive it now. Gee, I hope I do it right...anyone wanna say how to do it correctly? Or maybe somone wants to do it themself?  :p --~ TK MyTalk 03:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I see the helpfulness is overflowing, and once again proving my point. A few who consider themselves "elite" will never offer help or information, because they like their positions of knowing the Wiki so well, they can supplant their ideas for the majority of the users. --~ TK MyTalk 16:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
This sure seems like “criticize[ing] without solutions” [1]. I was under the impression that “Criticism, without offering a unacceptable behavior.” [2] I mean you posted your question less than 24 hours ago and “We don't have a running clock here, demanding instant action.” [3]--Reginod 19:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Exactly, as opposed to being rat packed instantly with criticism. Yes, you have it right. --~ TK MyTalk 19:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I’m not sure what you mean by “rat packed” but I’ll go ahead and assume it was intended in the politest and most civil manner possible and not as a baseless ad hominem attack. I’m also not sure what your other point was, but I think mine was fairly clear, if you are going to attack people for complaining about things then you ought not complain rather than fix things (I on the other hand have never told people to stop complaining as I think legitimate complaints well expressed benefit the site, especially on locked pages) .--Reginod 20:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Last night, I was talking to TK and I mentioned the possible idea of a tutoring system for new sysops or editors. I know this isn't really the appropriate page to bring this up, but it's a possible solution. I know Wikipedia does it. MountainDew 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I once had the motivation for something like that (and I still occasionally got the drive back, like in Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help). Even these days, I try to help where I find calls for help, but it's relatively thankless work in many cases.
On-topic: I think the first step for that would be to compile a list of open questions. We have some sysops who need a few pointers for sysop tools, and we got some sysops who need a full-scale "MediaWiki 101". It will be impossible to write a help without a starting point. --Sid 3050 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid we are past that now, they don't want others sharing knowledge, it robs them of their elite status. --~ TK MyTalk 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, I'm disappointed. I thought I helped you often enough for you to avoid such broad statements. --Sid 3050 20:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe eventually the field of thistles will be burned to grow anew. MountainDew 20:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

The archive didn't really suit me. Can you leave some of the recent stuff up, so it's handier to use? When I drop in, I'm usually in a hurry. I just want to add a one-liner, on the model of what I see in front of me. If it's too clean, I kind of freeze up. --Ed Poor 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Accusations of trolling

Excuse me, but adding the conservative Christian view of sex to Heterosexuality is not "trolling", and neither is removing loaded words like "genocide" and "murder" from Holocaust. AppliedFaith 10:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We are debating "editing done in an attempt to embarrass conservapedia" [4]right now with a recommended ban of 6 months. These two edits, in my view, could earn you a one year ban, but you are free to put your input on that discussion page if you feel these were not attemtps to embarass Conservapedia. RobS 13:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
'Genocide' and 'Murder' are both legal charges that the instigators of the Holocaust were found guilty of. They are facts. Conservapedia is in favour of facts (a fairly difficult statement, but bear with me). Hence removing facts from Conservapedia is trolling. Wikinterpreter
So because the winners get to write the history books, objectivity and neutral language are to be thrown out the window? AppliedFaith 11:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

AppliedFaith, the winners in World War II were those who were opposed to slaughtering innocents. I think it's okay that people who are not in favor of slaughtering innocents get to write the history books. Do you disagree?-AmesGyo! 13:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think an encyclopedia shouldn't be using loaded terms that by their nature tell readers what to think. And try telling the civilians of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima that the Allies were opposed to slaughtering innocents. AppliedFaith 14:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)