Difference between revisions of "User talk:Iduan"
m |
Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop: new section) |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:No I absolutely agree that the general tone of the debate is terrible (and the newer users instantly jumping it is also unsettling to me, so I share your resentment towards that kind of trolling). I've been trying to clean it up as well - and I applaud your effort; it's just that I have been, on occasion, been using [[Template:personal remark removed]] or reverting sysops, and I can't in good conscience say that TracyS's comment - while, again, I completely disagree from it - wasn't far more civil than content from higher-ups on both sides that I ''haven't'' reverted, but you're doing a great job.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 10:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT) | :No I absolutely agree that the general tone of the debate is terrible (and the newer users instantly jumping it is also unsettling to me, so I share your resentment towards that kind of trolling). I've been trying to clean it up as well - and I applaud your effort; it's just that I have been, on occasion, been using [[Template:personal remark removed]] or reverting sysops, and I can't in good conscience say that TracyS's comment - while, again, I completely disagree from it - wasn't far more civil than content from higher-ups on both sides that I ''haven't'' reverted, but you're doing a great job.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 10:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
::Thanks, I quite understand the position now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT) | ::Thanks, I quite understand the position now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:24, 1 August 2011 (EDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: [[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]] I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT) |
Revision as of 13:54, August 2, 2011
| ||||||||||||||||
#1 on GoogleBarack Hussein Obama, since the recent upgrade, has leap frogged ahead of Wikipedia's article, and Mr. Barack Obama's very own website to occupy the #1 position on Google. Thank you, it was a brilliant idea, and very well executed. It is someting you need to be very proud, and we all appreciate your excellent work. If I can be of any futher assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. Rob Smith 22:25, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
mathGreetings. I was about to do another round of the revert war with ELWisty on the ham sandwich stuff, and then saw that you had already done it. I don't know what to do about him. This "revert willful ignorance" stuff is pretty outrageous. A year ago he would have been banned so fast his head would spin, but in this new era of a "kinder gentler Conservapedia" I want to show caution and forbearance first, and the door second. But, make no mistake about it, he is either a parodist or so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference. Next, I have to confront him on "willful ignorance" in the "Gabriel's horn" article. Spider-sense is tingling strongly. But we all have more important things to work on. I want to get into the issue of objectifying block reasons, which is a big project lately, but I've been awfully busy. SamHB 13:05, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Sorry about the Madonna stuffI've been editing the article a bit, and Legolas has chirped in to revert on a couple of occassions and his comments have all been directed toward EdPoor (and a bit over-the-top). It's been annoying. I think I've only commented about it in 2 places: 1) on Legolas's talk page and 2) on JamesWilson's talk page after he became involved and then commented on my talk page. I'll cease, though. Have a great day! SharonW 16:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Vandal[block this guy please. NickP 17:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS/Conservative commentsI take your point (about the general tone of the RobS/Conservative argument), but of course I daren't redact comments made by sysops. I've been rather appalled, however, by all the users who really have no say in these matters shooting their mouths off. I think it hurts the site in a lot of ways, so I've been trying to clean it up. However, I'm sure you're right; I'll back off and leave it to the sysops. Jcw 10:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a SysopAnother suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop: If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT) |