User:All Fish Welcome

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hi. All fish are welcome. Everyone else is welcome to, but please mind the fish.

Introduction

At the time of this writing, I've been here about a day. I've been clicking "Random page" over and over, usually making small corrections.

I've been observing the ideological winds on this site. Some of them blow stiffly, and not always where I want to go. But as long as I stick to the Conservapedia Commandments, I should avoid all the rocks, right? We'll see.

(Sorry for the awful sailing metaphors. It'll never happen again. I promise.)

I kind of know some things about politics, and the military, and a little bit of science. Maybe I can contribute to those articles. I am whiz-bang at finding accessible, authoritative sources on a variety of things.

Style

I love citing authoritative sources using an appropriate style guide. I'm the one taking Wile's "Dr." out of all those end notes. I'm sure he worked very hard for his Philosophiae Doctor and I would call him "doctor" to his face, but it doesn't belong in a citation. Modifying conventional academic style by inserting a title calls into question both the reliability of the article and Dr. Wile. If the author of the article is so unfamiliar with scholarly writing as to get a bibliographic entry wrong, why should we trust anything else they've written? And if it is Dr. Wile's usual habit to append a title in places where titles are usually not used, how should we regard that title? Unfortunately, some editors have taken to reverting my edits without discussion or explanation, even when I have added substantive information in addition to correcting the bibliographic error (example) -- this can only harm Conservapedia.

I've started a writing guide to suggest improvements to editors' writing, including citation, here.

Thanks.--All Fish Welcome 03:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Epigraphs

"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.... The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both." -- Andrew Jackson

Neat idea, but the checks and balances thing didn't work out quite that way. At the very least, all three branches of government are constituted by, granted authority over, and responsible to the people. Through the people, each branch is connected, and each may exercise indirect authority over the other. Kind of like feuding parents using their kids to get at each other.
Personal tools