User talk:Puellanivis

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Learn together (Talk | contribs) at 08:33, December 20, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, Puellanivis, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Puellanivis!

Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm enjoying your edits. Keep up the good work. Maestro 12:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

While I appreciate your interest in my work, my interest is not really intended to be pleasing to anyone or having anyone enjoy my edits. But rather to ensure that the information provided is correct according to the references cited. This is not about pushing a gay-rights agenda or pushing a transgender-rights agenda. It's ensuring fair and accurate representations of information, regardless of "which way" that information points, either pro-LGBT, or against LGBT. I certainly won't say on this forum "gay rights are necessary", as that is an opinion, and an opinion isn't any good on Conservapedia. Just as likely I won't say "gay rights are bad" as that is similarly an opinion. I also have no background, or research into LGB issues, only transgender issues, and more specifically transsexuality only. --Puellanivis 16:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Well, welcome anyway! We strive for accuracy. Geo.Complain! 19:33, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Thank you for your contributions Puellanivis. However, a word of friendly advice - there is a 90%/10% talk/article philosophy here where editors are encouraged to contribute to articles, either new ones, or constructive edits to established ones, rather than engaging in extended debates. Although talk page debate is welcomed, we hope you will make other contributions to this site as well. BrianCo 18:52, 3 December 2007 (EST)
I do often contribute to this site as much as I am able to, however as some of my views are outside of the american conservative views, some of my edits, even short ones, are deemed so inappropriate that the article is simply deleted. For this reason, I was told to discuss changes in the talk page before simply editing the article directly. Regardless of my bias, or your bias, I am here simply to ensure that certain opposing views are not treated as strawmen to be easily defeated. If those views are liberal or conservative does not matter to me, but if misrepresenting a topic, means you fail to actually represent the opposing view, then no one will be convinced, but rather they will simply affirm; either a liberal would go off saying "pff... facist lies", while for conservatives you're preaching to the choir. If an argument is presented such that neither side can reasonably call it lies, or misrepresentative then the argument becomes stronger and stronger. Every convincing article demonstrates that Conservapedia is truthful, and honest, rather than simply a choir-preaching sandbox. --Puellanivis 19:22, 3 December 2007 (EST)
I appreciate your POV if you feel you cannot contribute except throught the talk pages. I agree that there are many pages where you need to discuss changes beforehand. Personally I hope to see as many editors here as possible. A wiki-type site relies upon the contributons of many editors However, there are about 20,000 articles here, some of which could do with improvement. A little editing of the articles (most of which are not controversial) would certainly counterbalance you contributions to talk pages. Do that and I would expect that you could keep up your dialog on talk pages. I don't hold much sway round here but if I can do anything to keep an interested editor contributing then I feel that I am helping out in some way. BrianCo 19:42, 3 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks. I'll probably step up my non-contraversial edits (reword as little as possible, just make it look nicer, or better organized) You're advisement is greatly appreciated. --Puellanivis 20:28, 3 December 2007 (EST)

You're edits appear to be overwhelmingly on sex-related topics, and talk pages. Wikipedia likes this stuff more than we do. Please broaden your interests to more encyclopedic entries, or consider going elsewhere. Thanks.--Aschlafly 18:51, 7 December 2007 (EST)

My edits are not primarily on sex-related topics, they are on gender-related and transgender related topics. My edits center around ensuring that Conservapedia is not misrepresenting medically verified factual information. "Transgender" and "Transsexual" are encyclopedic entries, and deserve to have entries. Ignoring their existence is pretty much pointless, and a denial of reality. --Puellanivis 19:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)

(From the page Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?)

Well, you certainly do seem earnest in your beliefs! I'm sure you'll fit in perfectly at Conservapedia - again, welcome! Feebasfactor 23:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Well, it just strikes me as entirely stupid that someone would come to this site and try and prove things with science. Like ??? Vandalism, etc, isn't making liberals look any better, and they're no better that what they accuse conservatives to be. --Puellanivis 00:17, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Well I don't know about science (not quite sure what you mean, we do have science articles here...), but you're definitely right about the vandalism - and believe me, we've had plenty of vandalism at CP. Although I thought it was a given that liberals were stupid? :D By the way, if you ever need any help or advice (though you seem to be doing fine), my contact info is on my page, and I'll do what I can. Feebasfactor 00:45, 19 December 2007 (EST)

90/10 Rule

Please see about making positive article contributions. Thank you Learn together 14:30, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I am making positive article contributions, look at Theory of Relativity, the number of vandalisms that I have reverted. I am a valuable resource to CP, and I do, and will continue to make positive article contributions. That I take a short detour and discuss an issue directly concerning CP, no less in CP's favor, should be recognized as entirely acceptable. As well, a number of talk page edits I have made were in response to vandalism, or improper usernames, as I do not have the ability, like admins and sysops do, to simply ban them, and/or delete the vandal's page, if need be. Please look at Special:Contributions/Aschlafly in order to see the article to talk ratio of the founder of the site. I'll let you know that it's in violation of 90/10, however as an incredibly positive force for CP, there is absolutely no reason to ban him. --Puellanivis 14:36, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Just looking at the numbers of edits[1], Puellanivis is not in violation of the 90/10 rule. 50% of his total edits are in mainspace, and last time I checked 50% was greater than 10%! Andy is not in violation either.[2] Philip J. Rayment 21:05, 19 December 2007 (EST)
A little trick I've learned in life is to never trust summary screens when the data can be personally viewed. Do debate articles count in mainspace? I reviewed the data myself before making my assessment including looking at the quality of edits to actual articles. For instance his reverting Andy here [3] counts as a mainspace edit, but I didn't count it as such. I was looking specifically for new information added by the user, and found it to be wanting. Learn together 03:33, 20 December 2007 (EST)