Conservapedia talk:How to write an article - Revision history

Philip J. Rayment: Just comments /just/ because they are banned in not appropriate. In any case, they are now unbanned.

2008-09-02T02:51:50Z

Just comments /just/ because they are banned in not appropriate. In any case, they are now unbanned.

Philip J. Rayment: I must have hit "revert" instead of "undo" (again!). Start again so that I can leave edit comment.

2008-09-02T02:50:43Z

I must have hit "revert" instead of "undo" (again!). Start again so that I can leave edit comment.

Philip J. Rayment: Reverted edits by Ed Poor (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment

2008-09-02T02:48:36Z

Reverted edits by Ed Poor (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment

Ed Poor: removing comment from 2x blocked user

2008-09-01T23:47:43Z

removing comment from 2x blocked user

Philip J. Rayment: /* "Sweeping" condemnations */ Move to guidelines if and when agreed.

2008-08-31T06:53:15Z

"Sweeping" condemnations: Move to guidelines if and when agreed.

Philip J. Rayment: Revert; Ed, if they've read it wrong, point out the error in a response; don't wipe the post.

2008-08-31T06:52:20Z

Revert; Ed, if they've read it wrong, point out the error in a response; don't wipe the post.

Ed Poor: not carte blanche - you misread this - e.g., you may have overlooked "contact him for a clarification"

2008-08-31T02:30:07Z

not carte blanche - you misread this - e.g., you may have overlooked "contact him for a clarification"

DirkB: /* "Sweeping" condemnations */

2008-08-30T18:46:11Z

"Sweeping" condemnations

DirkB: /* "Sweeping" condemnations */

2008-08-30T18:45:36Z

"Sweeping" condemnations

Ed Poor: If you want to help . . .

2008-08-30T13:15:43Z

If you want to help . . .

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, September 2, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Carte blanche? ==
		+
		+	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:50, September 2, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
−
−	~~== Carte blanche? ==~~
−
−	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:48, September 2, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Carte blanche? ==
		+
		+	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, September 1, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
−
−	~~== Carte blanche? ==~~
−
−	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, August 31, 2008
Line 17:		Line 17:
	::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
	:::...yeah, I got an idea. Both Philip and I voiced criticism of this "proposed guideline" (with Philip implicitly reserving the right of voicing more), so maybe you should address those before marching ahead and turning your "proposed guideline" into an actual guideline. And if the "Project Director" (A. Schlafly?) supports such a liberal-bashing amnesty, I would be quite disturbed. An encyclopedia project shouldn't bash anybody, regardless of the own position. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 14:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:::...yeah, I got an idea. Both Philip and I voiced criticism of this "proposed guideline" (with Philip implicitly reserving the right of voicing more), so maybe you should address those before marching ahead and turning your "proposed guideline" into an actual guideline. And if the "Project Director" (A. Schlafly?) supports such a liberal-bashing amnesty, I would be quite disturbed. An encyclopedia project shouldn't bash anybody, regardless of the own position. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 14:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+	:::: I would think that if and when this is approved, ''then'' it gets transferred to the Guidelines page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:53, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, August 31, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

		+	== Carte blanche? ==

		+	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, August 31, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:It's not a general rule. It applies only to disputes between conservatives and liberals. You can fix the [[bumper sticker]] article without prior discussion. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

−	~~== Carte blanche? ==~~

−	This entire article is deeply troubling, and that's coming from somebody who is by God no fan of liberals. It appears to be a ''carte blanche'' that justifies bashing of liberals and protects such articles from correction - especially without some sort of definition of "liberal evil" or who gets to decide what counts as such. For hopefully obvious reasons, I oppose the current version of this guideline. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

	== "Sweeping" condemnations ==		== "Sweeping" condemnations ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, August 30, 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:

	::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
−	:::...yeah, I got ~~a suggestion~~. Both Philip and I voiced criticism of this "proposed guideline" (with Philip implicitly reserving the right of voicing more), so maybe you should address those before marching ahead and turning your "proposed guideline" into an actual guideline. And if the "Project Director" (A. Schlafly?) supports such a liberal-bashing amnesty, I would be quite disturbed. An encyclopedia project shouldn't bash anybody, regardless of the own position. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 14:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)	+	:::...yeah, I got an idea. Both Philip and I voiced criticism of this "proposed guideline" (with Philip implicitly reserving the right of voicing more), so maybe you should address those before marching ahead and turning your "proposed guideline" into an actual guideline. And if the "Project Director" (A. Schlafly?) supports such a liberal-bashing amnesty, I would be quite disturbed. An encyclopedia project shouldn't bash anybody, regardless of the own position. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 14:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, August 30, 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:

	::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+	:::...yeah, I got a suggestion. Both Philip and I voiced criticism of this "proposed guideline" (with Philip implicitly reserving the right of voicing more), so maybe you should address those before marching ahead and turning your "proposed guideline" into an actual guideline. And if the "Project Director" (A. Schlafly?) supports such a liberal-bashing amnesty, I would be quite disturbed. An encyclopedia project shouldn't bash anybody, regardless of the own position. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 14:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, August 30, 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	:Reading it again, this doesn't actually say "how to write an article" at all. It seems to be about what to do - or what not to do - with an existing article. There is already a [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] page - should this content be proposed & discussed as an addition to the guidelines, rather than a stand-alone article or essay? [[User:Sideways\|Sideways]] 09:10, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		:Reading it again, this doesn't actually say "how to write an article" at all. It seems to be about what to do - or what not to do - with an existing article. There is already a [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] page - should this content be proposed & discussed as an addition to the guidelines, rather than a stand-alone article or essay? [[User:Sideways\|Sideways]] 09:10, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	::Neither. I think I speak for the Project Director on this.
		+
		+	::But you're right; it should be merged into the guidelines somehow. Got any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)