Difference between revisions of "User talk:Godlives"
m |
m (remove link to deleted page) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Yup== | ==Yup== | ||
| − | Look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| This]] as compared to [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia| This!]] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 07:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | + | Look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| This]] as compared to <nowiki>[[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia| This!]]</nowiki> [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 07:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | ==Try this== | ||
| + | I saw that. I have checked through quite a few 'articles' now on topics I am somewhat familiar with and I have noticed many which while inaccurate are being posted by people who are sending up the site, aqnd some which are genuinely funny. I presume the sysops don't know enough to correct these articles and may even believe they are accurate. It seems that a sites as biased as this will never generate the respect necessary to attract sufficient numbers of quality contributors. Try this to get a relevant page started: [[Major bias in conservapedia]] [[User:Godlives|Godlives]] 07:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well, I guess it was fun while it lasted. they'll likely BAN you for such subversiveness.[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 07:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :They ban people for far less, so it seems like Godlives isn't going to live very long. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==John Howard== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hey man. I read with interest your article on John Howard. Very interesting, good read :-) | ||
| + | Inspired, i've started one on [[Kim Beazley]] - because i don't think people here know enough about the australian presidency. [[User:Babygotbook|Babygotbook]] 09:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Very interesting. What about all the previous Presidents? Someone will have to add them. By the way: The entry for NZ is enlightening and well worth a read. [[User:Godlives|Godlives]] 10:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:59, February 24, 2009
While the David Hicks item is true, they'll delete it since it' source to wikipedia. Source it to a news org and it should be fine. Crackertalk 07:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the tip. I have only just stumbled across this site and am absolutely flabbergasted. They criticise Wikipedia but on that site if there is a mistake it can be corrected. On this site, many important pages are just locked so the obvious mistakes cannot be corrected. Godlives 07:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Yup
Look at This as compared to [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia| This!]] Crackertalk 07:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Try this
I saw that. I have checked through quite a few 'articles' now on topics I am somewhat familiar with and I have noticed many which while inaccurate are being posted by people who are sending up the site, aqnd some which are genuinely funny. I presume the sysops don't know enough to correct these articles and may even believe they are accurate. It seems that a sites as biased as this will never generate the respect necessary to attract sufficient numbers of quality contributors. Try this to get a relevant page started: Major bias in conservapedia Godlives 07:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I guess it was fun while it lasted. they'll likely BAN you for such subversiveness.Crackertalk 07:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- They ban people for far less, so it seems like Godlives isn't going to live very long.
John Howard
Hey man. I read with interest your article on John Howard. Very interesting, good read :-) Inspired, i've started one on Kim Beazley - because i don't think people here know enough about the australian presidency. Babygotbook 09:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Very interesting. What about all the previous Presidents? Someone will have to add them. By the way: The entry for NZ is enlightening and well worth a read. Godlives 10:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)