User talk:Daphnea

It appears I made a mistake. Please accept my apologies. Geoff Plourde^Complain! 20:02, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. No problem. Daphnea 20:04, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Stop making positive edits, part of the lulz from this place comes from their HI-larious "definitions". Make more troll edits, but don't give advice on how to correct page. Jesus, dude.--Ivysaur 22:41, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler did not seem to want to answer, so here is the best answer I can come up with. I would suggest steering clear of any pages that start with the word "liberal," or contain the word "values." Those pages are watched pretty closely, and any dissenting information is pretty quickly reverted. Other than that there is no easy way to tell what pages are dangerous ground. Barack Obama is another. If you look at the talk page and see alot of arguing and debate, that might be an indicator. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^{talk Vote in my NEW polls} 11:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll repeat what I said on Bugler's talk page, and on your talk page. Feel free to carry on the conversation at any of these.

When you say "dissenting information" what do you mean? My edits were to fix factual problems. One was to correct something said about Wikipedia (the Wikipedia article we talk about no longer says what we say it does). The other was to clear up a statement that was not backed up by references, and so not verifiable according to the Conservapedia Commandments.

When I came here I thought that this was a wiki, like Wikipedia but written from a Conservative point of view. Are there actually restrictions on who can edit articles? Daphnea 11:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I think it's safe to say that contributing to the compass article is "safe ground." I'm still trying to figure out "the rules" here and am finding that a lot of them are unspoken - you find out when it's too late that you've transgressed. I've been shunned (blocked) once already for violating some obscure rule that said if you talk too much, rather than directly make major edits, you'll be blocked. This implies that anyone (like me) who would rather discuss something contentious before actually changing an article has to learn simply to shut up. I personally think that is counterproductive.

Writing about compasses is much more soothing (and as an ex-navigation type, something I rather enjoy). -- AdmiralNelson 16:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree in principle, though if that's all I do I'm beginning to wonder why I wouldn't do it on another wiki. It's hard to see how an article on compasses written from a conservative viewpoint is different from one written from any other viewpoint. Some of the rules are very strange. Apparently there are some articles (no-one seems to know exactly which ones) where you have to ask permission of User:Aschlafly if you want to edit them. Daphnea 16:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! Bugler 18:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT) And again! Bugler 12:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"I did as you said and asked User:Aschlafly about the edits to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. That was 48 hours ago and he hasn't got back to me. How about we apply the legal doctrine "silence gives consent" and make the edits again? If he's that busy he probably won't notice, and if he objects he can always tell me why when he does notice."

How about waiting for an answer from him first? Making an over-riding decision like what you indicated above is not allowed. Karajou 15:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

This is starting to sound very worrying. Is this an "unwritten rule" - you can't disagree with User:Aschlafly? I understand that he set up the website, but if he had wanted it to contain only his views why didn't he make it a regular website instead of a wiki?

Incidentally the edits I made (that were undone and need to be "discussed" were to fix cases where the article was contravening the written rules of Conservapedia. One was a factual in accuracy and the other was a case where the reference given did not back up what was said in the article. Do the unwritten rules take precedence over the written ones? Daphnea 15:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Pretty much.AliceBG 15:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

No, I wasn't referring to an unwritten rule; what I was referring to was an attempt by you to make changes that he told you not to do, and those changes would be done behind his back. It's not going to happen. So, wait until he gets back online, broach the question again, and see what comes of it. If he says no, accept it and move on. Karajou 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy has been online several times since I asked him the question more than 48 hours ago. He has been online several times since I reminded him about it 24 hours ago. If he actually answered me and explained the reasons why my edits were bad I would be happy - it is his site after all. For that matter not one other editor has ventured to give me a reason why my edits were considered bad, including the several sysops who have been involved in this and (I would hope) have a pretty good idea of how Conservapedia works by now. Daphnea 15:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Hello. You should, by now, understand that the POV of, say, Hollywood values is to denigrate the motion picture and television industries. Adding films that show that Hollywood at least recognizes how to make a movie that has strong conservative values, might make a reader think that there is some redeeming value in Hollywood and its value system. Since we know this cannot be the case, (after all, something is either all good or all bad), the edits you made were outside the scope of the POV. Marge 16:58, 26 June 2008 (EDT)