User talk:Sid 3050/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Sid 3050, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Your comments here were quite good. I'm also pleased to see a bit less character assassination in your more recent posts! Also, good job keeping up with things at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Webcomics.

brenneman 23:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia...

VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Glad to see a "Rational" user contributing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

VanTucky 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleasing Andy

Actually no, I didn't make the change to simply please Mr Shlafly. I'm trying to find a form of words, at least in the intro, that isn't seen as smearing the site. I'm very aware that I probably won't succeed but hey ho... AJKGordon 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't call it "smear". When even the front page (see the entry about the Great Lake) openly suggests that the answer may just be a Young Earth, it's very hard to argue that CP is not supportive of YEC. We can't even argue that they give fair hearing to both sides because sysops like Conservative and who-else-not openly state that NPOV and balance are not the CP ways of doing things. Andy's "Let's take a point of view" quote in the article really seals the deal. So there is POV/imbalance, and there is YEC-favoring bias. Pointing out that Metro noticed that is hardly a smear.

Andy of course doesn't want to admit this YEC-bias because it's harder to "sell" an encyclopedia that's labeled "creationist" instead of "factual". On the other hand, he's not doing anything to change that perceived image, so I sorta refuse to bend reality around him. ;)

I truly appreciate that you want to find good wording (and despite what Andy says, I'm not one of WP's evil liberal watchdogs - I just happened to read your discussion as-it-happened), but the key is of course what the sources say. So unless Andy or anybody else finds a stunningly great (and notable) news article about CP that says that CP is not pro-YEC, we'll have to go with what the press says so far. And the Metro article says "Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective."

Even if (and that's a large "if") Andy made a public policy announcement that CP does not support YEC, it wouldn't change the fact that sources have observed the creationist bias and that this bias is still present in a strong form. I'm definitely no WP policy pro, but I think the best NPOV compromise would then be something like "Even though Conservapedia officially denies supporting YEC, a creationist POV has been observed in several articles."

Tell you what, though. I can open a discussion on Talk:CP and cross-reference the discussions about the intro on CP (including yours, there are at least two). Then we can see if there is maybe consensus on a better way of including the sourced information. Just don't expect me to support the "smear" gig as per my reasoning above. --Sid 3050 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't see the smear either, hence my rather fumbling posts. It may be that creating points of contention between the two sites is policy driven and that it helps CP to be seen at the same level as WP. Therefore Andy doesn't want to resolve any argument. I almost posted "I hope I'm not meddling"! But genuinely I want to see if I can help resolve that opening contentious statement. While it's obvious to many of us that CP supports a conservative POV (like duh!) and a YEC POV, stating so seems to be taken as a smear by Andy. But I edit (very little) on CP to try to balance stuff out a little - not to lose its con POV, that would just be disruptive, but to inject a little reality so that mainstream conservatives can give it a little respect. Having almost every big article on cosmology or biology subsumed by its largest section, i.e. The YEC View, does CP no favours especially when it denies that it does so! AJKGordon 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and I completely understand where you come from. I joined CP in February/March (and by my last count, I got 11 blocks - several of them permanent - for pretty much everything from sarcasm to arguing about Greek typos) and tried to inject rational thought. Articles like "Origin of the Moon" over there are pretty much my biggest successes (go check the edit history and talk page, it's hilarious reading material), but it's just a matter of time before they get re-conservified ;)

Even if we resolve the opening in a way that pleases both sides/sites (fairly unlikely, considering that Andy's woes start with the source itself and the claim in general), Andy would find another piece of "bias". In all the time I watched the site, I can't remember Andy saying one nice thing about WP or removing one of the items from "Examples of Bias on WP". Of course, this isn't terribly surprising - No matter how much the sysops deny it, CP defines itself over WP, so saying that WP is okay would essentially negate CP's reason of existence.

On the topic of actually rephrasing it... tough one, unless a reliable, new source falls from the sky. One could suggest "Many of its article are written from a creationist perspective" (which echoes the current source), but that (1) might be a step backwards in terms of accuracy (there is also the evo/old-universe perspective, it's just being presented as some sort of liberal guesswork with the primary concern of getting rid of God) and (2) wouldn't exactly make Andy any happier because it sounds even more radical than it is. It's a very tricky issue, and I'm not sure if there is a better way of putting it (and taking it out completely is most likely out of the question because YEC is obviously a major factor of CP, so it would be wrong not to mention it). --Sid 3050 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll probably leave it then and just add bits of balance in less contentious articles as and when I find them. Seriously, I'm not trying to disrupt - but I don't like seeing purposeful polarisation. We should be better than that! :) AJKGordon 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I get struck by inspiration, I'll certainly let you know, but I'll be fairly busy the next weeks, so don't bet on it. If Andy keeps it up, you could raise the issue on the talk page here; maybe the more experienced people have a solution (I'm pretty much a newbie when it comes to editing WP, not so much from the technical side, but definitely from the policy one)... I think JoshuaZ is already aware of it (he moved the Metro source up to the YEC claim around the time Andy started bickering, if I recall correctly), but the other editors may not be. I'll leave that call to you, I guess.

And I totally wish you the best for your stay on CP, please keep it up! :) --Sid 3050 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From the past

Hey, I was just going over some old arguments tonight, and saw you presenting good, well-thought-out points in the WCCA DRV. As you're still active, even in the slightest, just wanted to say...

High five! --Kizor 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! *high-fives back* :) --Sid 3050 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)