Conservapedia:Desk/Disputes
User Disputes
kosovo - removal of information about destruction of christian heritage etc.
in article about kosovo, information about violence since 1999, KLA being described as terrorist organisation in 1998 by US administration, burning of churches and destruction of christian heritage, and albanian mafia, were removed by User:Karajou and he locked the page, despite of references being provided, including those of many conservatives who point out these things in the US. Mekety 14:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Preachology: speedy deletion?
I do not understand why my contribution "Preachology" is STILL marked for speedy deletion.
Preachology is from the words "preach" (to deliver a sermon) and "ology" (any science or branch of study). Of course, it is also an "art" (a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation).
Preaching is an art because it is a craft that must be performed by a real person. We will talk much more about that later. (Definitions from Word Web-Princeton University).
From: www.preachology.com (used by permission)
Thank you,
Michael E
Content dispute for Left Behind: Eternal Forces article
I'd appreciate some other opinions in the issue currently causing the dispute for Left Behind: Eternal Forces. See the Talk page and edit history. Jinxmchue 14:38, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- This is the first edit by Urushnor: [1]. Based on this, I'm for granting control of the article to Jinxmchue. Karajou 14:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Queer Theory
I created the article Queer theory some months ago, and worked to make it a respectable encyclopedia article describing this body of literary and social criticism, devoid of pushing any political view. It had applicable quotes from a landmark scholarly paper in the theory, one about Hemingway, was linked in from the postmodernism article, and was a pretty good article, if I do say so myself.
This last week, Ed Poor deleted it with the edit comment that it was a silly article. He didn't go onto the talk page and say he was going to delete it, he didn't make any arguments, he just arbitrarily decided that it was silly and there was no chance he could be wrong. As with all deleted articles, of course, now the content appears to be gone irrevocably.
I pointed this out to Ed, asking him to restore it if he could or why he was deleting it, and a brief discussion ensued on his talk page. The entirety of it can be found at this link, wherein Ed deletes it all. There was no other communication between him and I, and I think you can see that I do not make anything like a personal remark or that could be blockable. Nonetheless, I was blocked by Ed for "personal remarks."
Another sysop has intervened to unblock me, but I think this is a flagrant abuse of Ed's power that has demonstrably made the encyclopedia a worse resource. Even if it had been a silly article, it was a whole order of magnitude better than this recent article by Ed, so there is a clear double standard operating just because I am liberal. Furthermore, I have specialized training in the area under discussion, yet this was ignored. And even furthermore, blocking me to avoid the discussion was an abusive thing to do.
I would like, at the least, the article restored or removed from the deleted pages protected category of redirects so I can remake it. A reprimand to Ed would also probably be appropriate. Thank you.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:04, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- The article has been temporarily restored while this dispute is hashed out. DanH 14:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Thank you for your swift attention to that, I am glad to see the work is still there :)--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:23, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- The article has been temporarily restored while this dispute is hashed out. DanH 14:11, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Jareddr has it out for me or just plain liberal trash. He continues to delete with petty claims, newly added sentences are replace with mispellings or changes their meaning. I know that I am supposed to suspect changes from others to popular articles like John McCain and Barack Obama. This guy needs to lay off. --jp 13:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Gun Rights Template
Please see the talk page Template talk:Second Amendment groups. This template is now more than just a list of Second Amendment groups. I believe that the topic "Gun rights" is broader than "Second Amendment" because it covers gun rights outside the United States and state and local gun rights as well as Federal ones. (User TheAmericanRedoubt disagrees and takes the opposite view.) Of course this should be a community decision, rather than being left to the first editor to create a template. I could create a separate Gun rights template but want us to move forward with one voice.
I am requesting that an administrator move the template to Template:Gun rights. Many thanks! Wschact 12:46, 10 January 2015 (EST)