Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conservative style"

Revision as of 13:26, June 17, 2008

Stuff

Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site. AdenJ 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

No comment neccessary! Bugler 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. StatsMsn 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. Bugler 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. StatsMsn 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. Bugler 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. StatsMsn 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A humourist! Bugler 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --IlTrovatore 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --IlTrovatore 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it. AdenJ 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Delete, really?

Blog or encyclopedia?-AShephard 22:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Does this page look like an encyclopedia article? HenryS 22:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Does the liberal style page? Please demonstrate how this page, in any way, is different than the Liberal Style page. --AndrasK 22:47, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't answer a question with a question. Yes or no, does this article (Conservative Style) look like something you would find in an encyclopedia? HenryS 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah buddy, what he said. Henry, you seem to think that this should be less forum, more encyclopedia. Which side of the line does Liberal style fall on? Let's have some formal equality. Nuke 'em both I say, and let God sort them out.-AShephard 22:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I would if I could. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and this is no reason to keep this page. HenryS 22:50, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

There is no reason to delete it. --AndrasK 22:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

So you think it is encyclopedic? HenryS 22:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It's better than encyclopedic...it's Conservapedic! --Jareddr 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it's up to par with the rest of the material. And when you're putting your dirty laundry in plain sight, and in fact making it the sole raison d'etre of the site, it's hard to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Henry.-AShephard 22:58, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

No, no this is not something you would find in an encyclopedia. HenryS 23:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Is this, friend?-AShephard 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

No, it isn't. Go start a deletion discussion. Make convincing arguments and see if you can get any support. HenryS 23:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Well said AShephard. This entry meets the de facto quality standards of this site. One might argue that it does not appear encyclopedic, but then others on this site will argue that goal of this site is not to be an encyclopedia in the stylistic sense but rather in the sense that it is a place to gain knowledge. --AndrasK 23:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks!-AShephard 23:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

There is absolutely no value to this "article". You, or whoever created it, simply made it to be disruptive and to protest the existence of Liberal Style. That is not the way to go. Please go start a deletion discussion at Liberal Style. HenryS 23:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please see DanH's talk page regarding assuming the motivations of the author. --AndrasK 23:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I already did. HenryS 23:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Since all such "deletion discussions", when they involve the pet projects of sysops, inevitably end in the banning of any and all who bring up the issue for "talk, talk, talk" or "trolling" or any of the other numerous excuses sysops use to bully other users, what pray tell would be the point in that? If you think these articles are encyclopaedic, you delete them. You have the power, use it to actually improve the tone of the project. --Taciturn 09:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Superfluous and Ideological Edits by Bugler

Mr. Bugler (for lack of better address) I find your removal of content purely ideological and inappropriate with keeping the idea of a fair and accurate encyclopedia. As per Mr. Schlafly's talk page, both an actual example and citation were used. Please explain why you felt that this material deserved deletion, but the 50+ statements WITHOUT example or citation on the Liberal Style page do not. Your inability to communicate your logic and reasoning behind your changes is completely inappropriate to the MO of all wiki pages. You seem to hide behind a facade of creating balance, when in fact, you are removing it. Please explain your actions. If you are indeed in the right, you should have no problem explaining why you did what you did. --AndrasK 09:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)