Difference between revisions of "User talk:Scott"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Warning)
(Warning: the three Ss)
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
That was intended as a warning? You are right the guidelines extend and augment the commandments, albeit in the manner I described. Not being a sysop threats from me would be empty ones and likely infringe some rule or other. If such a rule does not exist one would be created to cover that so I'd get blocked. As you see I'm not in a position to do threats only friendly warnings. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:31, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 
That was intended as a warning? You are right the guidelines extend and augment the commandments, albeit in the manner I described. Not being a sysop threats from me would be empty ones and likely infringe some rule or other. If such a rule does not exist one would be created to cover that so I'd get blocked. As you see I'm not in a position to do threats only friendly warnings. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:31, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Thanks for pointing me to your contribution at [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]. If you want to survive here its best to avoid the three '''S'''s: [[Sex]], [[Science]] and [[Religion|Spirituality]]. If you edit a subject related to sex, science or religion in a manner that a sysop doesn't approve of you could be in bother no matter how well sourced your "facts" may be. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:23, 19 May 2007

Welcome to Conservapedia. Please be sure to read the Conservapedia Commandments and enjoy edittin'. Premier Tom Mayfair 18:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi, Scott. I am a Wikipedian with 5 1/2 years experience editing there (and a former Developer, Bureaucrat and Sysop). I can sympathize with your frustration.
On the other hand, please bear in mind that Conservapedia and Wikipedia both evolved a great deal during their first year or two. Things take time, so I request that you be patient. Saying, "Fix it quick, or I'm out of here" puts a lot of pressure on us.
I have been here less than 3 weeks! If you check my contribs, you'll see whether I have accomplished anything of significance in this time.
I invite you to stick around and talk things out. We are developing guidelines for sourcing, for dispute resolution, and so forth. You can help! See Category:Proposed Conservapedia policy. --Ed Poor 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed. I did not intend to have said "Fix it quick, or I'm out of here" about content, although I perhaps had that thought about the attitudes of certain Conservapedia sysops towards other editors. I really did feel I had improved the Wikipedia article, and was disappointed that it was reverted without explanation.
As Conservapedia claims to be (or has been reported to be) a conservative alternative to the "liberal" Wikipedia, articles about the comparisons and articles about topics that Conservatives and liberals are known to differ will inevitably receive more scrutiny, so if this project is to improve its image, these articles must be beyond criticism. Pointing fingers at articles that used to be bad without citing when is just lowering the bar to make it easier to dismiss Conservapedia.
Your proposed policies and Category:Conservapedia Guidelines look good, but are leading towards ruining the claim that Conservapedia:Commandments are the only rules. --Scott 09:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Another Aussie

Hi Scott, I'm a new conservapedia user from Australia. I've come here mainly to add basic common sense articles about Australia to this bastion of things American. Conservapedia offers a fascinating insight into the American mindset. It has been an educational experience on many levels. Hannibal ad portas 07:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Warning

That was intended as a warning? You are right the guidelines extend and augment the commandments, albeit in the manner I described. Not being a sysop threats from me would be empty ones and likely infringe some rule or other. If such a rule does not exist one would be created to cover that so I'd get blocked. As you see I'm not in a position to do threats only friendly warnings. Auld Nick 11:31, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing me to your contribution at Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?. If you want to survive here its best to avoid the three Ss: Sex, Science and Spirituality. If you edit a subject related to sex, science or religion in a manner that a sysop doesn't approve of you could be in bother no matter how well sourced your "facts" may be. Auld Nick 12:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott&diff=prev&oldid=168364
www.conservapedia.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-36
24844
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5QWUKXNNWORZ7MDRSXZLPXCCZEWTBCBN
<urn:uuid:aa78a9af-e414-40dc-bccc-cf9abecf31e9>
2016-08-26T20:19:54Z
65.60.9.250
sha1:LK4KFMZQ7SYYBCLOGT3NAHHG7SZR2GTF
<urn:uuid:bbdd85e8-5255-45fa-8c05-6f009779463e>
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott&diff=prev&oldid=168364
length
response
<urn:uuid:528f3724-7e5e-404e-95c9-110d55c43d22>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf