1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 17:27, 10 September 2009
, 10 September 2009→Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome): Wait no, I won the debate topic, but then again Nx apparently wasn't debating, but anyway.
(→Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome): Wait no, I won the debate topic, but then again Nx apparently wasn't debating, but anyway.) |
|||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ===Arguments that Liberapedia (or certain descriptions) should be included (rebuttals welcome)=== | ||
<big><big><big> I moved this to subpage, Nx moved it back out here. I do not endorse edits I made in this section of this incomplete debate map. </big></big></big> Read this if you either like being confused (reading my possibly confused edits) | <big><big><big> I moved this to subpage, Nx moved it back out here. I do not endorse edits I made in this section of this incomplete debate map. </big></big></big> Read this if you either like being confused (reading my possibly confused edits). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
(Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. '''''[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) '''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | (Please indent rebuttal's and place them under the argument in favor. Only bullet arguments favoring the inclusion of Liberpedia info. '''''I'm moving editors posts and making this like an outline, if no one minds. '''''[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:23, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) '''''[Added bold and italic emphasis to the preceding statement. Some editors may have missed that, since the section grew. I apologize for [[User_talk:Lumenos#Reordering_talk_page_comments|not anticipating this]] (it is rather humorous in my view but I'm sorry if it caused anyone frustration, or if they feel any damage cannot be repaired). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)]''''' | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
::::So I suppose you are saying that they may be able to post this info to your wiki. Shucks, well I guess we could always use this as evidence of "They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia." I don't know how you expect to argue your way out of a catch 22. Notice it doesn't work the other way around. Like if you prove that you pay no attention to Conservapedia, this doesn't imply Liberapedia would not be of interest to those reading this article. I think this is getting to be a dead horse. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::So I suppose you are saying that they may be able to post this info to your wiki. Shucks, well I guess we could always use this as evidence of "They both devote a great deal of attention to Conservapedia." I don't know how you expect to argue your way out of a catch 22. Notice it doesn't work the other way around. Like if you prove that you pay no attention to Conservapedia, this doesn't imply Liberapedia would not be of interest to those reading this article. I think this is getting to be a dead horse. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::I think I completely lost track there. What are we arguing about again? I was trying to clear the misconception that RW seems to be deleting CP related material and that there is significant opposition or not enough support for this. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | :::::I think I completely lost track there. What are we arguing about again? I was trying to clear the misconception that RW seems to be deleting CP related material and that there is significant opposition or not enough support for this. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::::Ok, I think I understand now, you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT) | ::::::Ok, I think I understand now, '''you're arguing for including a link to Liberapedia in this article. If that is so, I'm afraid your efforts to to defeat me in this debate have been in vain, because I have no problem with that''' (though your argument is a bit stretched because Liberapedia is a parody of CP, while RW refutes CP). But then again I'm not familiar with Liberapedia's content enough to make a judgement here. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 16:01, 31 August 2009 (EDT)[Bold added by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:27, 10 September 2009 (EDT)] | ||
*RationalWiki may "purge the mainspace of [Conservapedia] references", which may alienate a significant number of users who may be interested in a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia (and maybe less deletionist). (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | *RationalWiki may "purge the mainspace of [Conservapedia] references", which may alienate a significant number of users who may be interested in a wiki that is inclusive of criticism of Conservapedia (and maybe less deletionist). (Posted by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) | ||