User talk:Barikada
From Conservapedia
This is the talk page of Barikada. If you're here, odds are you're here to ask him something/warn him about doing something. Please do so at the bottom of the page if it's a new submission, or at the bottom of the relevant thread.
Have a wonderful day!
Contents |
re: "Cdesign proponentsists"
Yes, and? One instance in one book that isn't even used anymore (and I don't think it ever was) is hardly meaningful. Jinxmchue 13:55, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- It was the book used for the case. Barikada 13:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Good catch
Ugh ugh ugh ugh there are no more words to describe that vid. HelpJazz 21:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)
- BME is far worse than the other one. Barikada 21:58, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Ice (novel)
You might think it "pointless" to say that the novel Ice has had no allusions made to it so far, nor has it been adapted to any other medium. But when people read an entry about a novel, they're going to want to know whether they can see the movie or not. A positive statement that they can't see the movie because no one has made the movie would answer that question. In short, certain things have to be present in order to answer frequently-asked questions, even if the answer is "no."--TerryHTalk 18:06, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- If you see no mentions of a film adaptation of something, woudln't you logically assume that there is no film adaptation? Noting the non-existance of something is a waste of space. Barikada 18:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- A second note: If that is not the logical assumption, shouldn't you be putting such a notice on the page for every single book listed here? Barikada 18:11, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Any encyclopedia is likely to be incomplete. Therefore an absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. Therefore noting the non-existence of something is a necessary answer to a frequently-asked question.
And as to "shouldn't we be putting such a notice for every single book"--well, if it's my article on any given book, then you can be absolutely confident that I will put such a notice on it.--TerryHTalk 18:26, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- If someone fails to reach the logical conclusion that there is no film adaptation given the lack of notification on that page, they could do a search on the... Oh, what do you youngins call it? Enter-web?
- In any case, I'll get right on adding pointless notification to the articles for every book, including Ann Coulter's bul- I mean, Ann Coulter's lovely works of fiction. Barikada 18:29, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- The much more interesting question is: How do you prove "No other work of fiction or theater has made any allusions to this work", anyway? Did Terry read every book in existence? The statement in its current, absolute wording may very well be factually incorrect, which is worse than not making a statement about it. --Jenkins 18:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I think he was playing the odds. Why would you make allusions to Christian SF, excepting cases of mockery? Barikada 18:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- That's a pretty strong exception. I'd say that many allusions to any given work are mocking to a certain degree. Also, note that the statement does not exclude mockery: "has made any allusions"
- Of course it's playing the odds, but I wasn't aware that encyclopedias are written by gambling. ;) --Jenkins 18:44, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I think he was playing the odds. Why would you make allusions to Christian SF, excepting cases of mockery? Barikada 18:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- The much more interesting question is: How do you prove "No other work of fiction or theater has made any allusions to this work", anyway? Did Terry read every book in existence? The statement in its current, absolute wording may very well be factually incorrect, which is worse than not making a statement about it. --Jenkins 18:36, 26 January 2008 (EST)
We don't ask visitors to this site to fill in incomplete information by going to a search engine. What you just suggested is absurd.
And by the way: if you can't tell fiction from non-fiction, then maybe you ought to stay away from all articles on books for awhile.--TerryHTalk 18:46, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Absurd? Can you actually prove to me that no novel has ever made an allusion to Ice?
- On that note... Oh dear, you mean she really is that nutty? Barikada 18:50, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Make up your mind. Everybody ought to deduce "no allusions," and yet "I can't prove it." Those two propositions are contradictory.
And Ann Coulter is in full possession of her faculties. She's like me--she blows the lid off intellectual scandal. That's her job.--TerryHTalk 18:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Everybody "ought to deduce" that there's no film adaptation, as well!
- Oh, thank the gods. So she's just bad at getting her jokes across? Barikada 19:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Quotes
Quotes typically go inside punctuation unless the majority of the sentence is the quote, thus this edit [1] is incorrect. Also - try to write better edit summaries, saying you're improving it doesn't really say anything - of course you're improving it- why else would you be editing it?--IDuan 21:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Oh. Sorry. As a writer, I've always been told otherwise... And: Well, people often accuse my edits of being trollish, so I figure it's worth noting that I'm actually improving articles to attempt to prevent people from making these claims. Barikada 21:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure where you get that from - however regardless my point was about the edit summaries (you've typed "Verbessern" in many - which is German for "improving" - but that doesn't really tell us anything, you should try to be slightly more detailed in the edit summary, like, "move quotes" or something like that)--IDuan 21:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Well... I originally tried simply saying improving in English, but that led to accusations of me mocking somebody. My edit under Talk:Genius bias was called trolling, for example. Therefore, I feel it nessecary to point out that I am, in fact, improving an article, and not "trolling" as such. Barikada 21:46, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Just summarize what you're doing (without being so general; example: "added picture" or "bolded" or "fixed format") - and then it's obvious you're improving it--IDuan 21:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Yeah... But that's kinda dull. At least with the summary in German it looks like I'm doing more than janitorial work. Barikada 21:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Just summarize what you're doing (without being so general; example: "added picture" or "bolded" or "fixed format") - and then it's obvious you're improving it--IDuan 21:49, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Well... I originally tried simply saying improving in English, but that led to accusations of me mocking somebody. My edit under Talk:Genius bias was called trolling, for example. Therefore, I feel it nessecary to point out that I am, in fact, improving an article, and not "trolling" as such. Barikada 21:46, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I'm not sure where you get that from - however regardless my point was about the edit summaries (you've typed "Verbessern" in many - which is German for "improving" - but that doesn't really tell us anything, you should try to be slightly more detailed in the edit summary, like, "move quotes" or something like that)--IDuan 21:41, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Agreed. Not all of us know German. DanH 21:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- That's the point. :P Barikada 22:30, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Football
What do you mean by "Don't mess with football"? DanH 22:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- During the football bombing scare last year, a rep from the NFL went on TV to address the issue. He ended the inteview with the overly dramatic words "Don't mess with football." Barikada 23:01, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I think that again goes with try to be more specific in your edit summaries - unless you're editing a talk page, you should explicitly summarize what you did, in that case it should have been something like "de-capitalize", again, this is only so that no one thinks you're vandalizing an article--IDuan 23:04, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- Oh c'mon. I assume I can't make references to hubcaps, bottle caps, or kitty cats as a replacement for "capitalis" "capitals" and "categories", either? :( Barikada 23:05, 26 January 2008 (EST)
- I think that again goes with try to be more specific in your edit summaries - unless you're editing a talk page, you should explicitly summarize what you did, in that case it should have been something like "de-capitalize", again, this is only so that no one thinks you're vandalizing an article--IDuan 23:04, 26 January 2008 (EST)
Hey!
Wanna try some Snow Crash?
--JOwen
- Sure, what harm could a virtual drug do? Barikada 19:52, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Er, at some point I think I'm meant to say 'Both; neither; what's the difference?', but that's not yet. Just don't let the Nam-Shub of Enki into your brain! --JOwen
- XD I've got a copy of the book beside me. It's pretty good, ain't it? :P Barikada 19:57, 3 February 2008 (EST)
- Stephenson's one of the best authors living, in my opinion - at least for entertainment and ideas value. Cryptonomicon's better, though. --JOwen
- Haven't read that. I'll have to order it after I get through the rest of my unread novels. (Next (Crichton), Thud! (Pratchett), Neuromancer (Gibson), and Pattern Recognition (Gibson). Oh, and The Jericho Plot, but I've vowed to never read that piece of trash all the way through.) Are you a fan of William Gibson's stuff? Barikada 20:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)
O'Bannon
The article citation is at the bottom of the page, specifically the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and that is the last that I will hear from you on that subject. Karajou 23:47, 4 March 2008 (EST)
- I'm sorry, I missed the source due to the horribly awkward formatting of that template. But again, it's nice to see the drastic differences in formatting between that page and CP's version while looking at the stunning similarities between the CP and WP versions.
- Your threat is acknowledged, and your rudeness taken note of.
- May your crops be bountiful, mein freund.Barikada 23:54, 4 March 2008 (EST)
- No, Barikada, it is YOUR OWN RUDENESS that is the problem; it is your own rushing to judgement without even looking at the facts that is the problem; it is your own lack of a decent investigation in the matter that is the problem. It is your own lack of respect that is the problem. I trust in the future there will be no more problems. Karajou 23:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
- Karajou, I have been polite to you this entire time. I did my research, brought up what I saw as a problem.
- No, Karajou. I don't respect you. I don't expect you to respect me, either. Barikada 00:03, 5 March 2008 (EST)
- No, Barikada, it is YOUR OWN RUDENESS that is the problem; it is your own rushing to judgement without even looking at the facts that is the problem; it is your own lack of a decent investigation in the matter that is the problem. It is your own lack of respect that is the problem. I trust in the future there will be no more problems. Karajou 23:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Darnit!
Oh man that is one word (or maybe those are two words) that I will never, ever get right. I never know the difference so I looked it up, and I thought that "effected" was the right word... Bah, bah, and bah! HelpJazz 22:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
- Heh. 'salright, mate, I get the two messed up a lot... I actually looked it up before I corrected you. :P Barikada 22:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Thank you
Thank you for your help in drafting "Liberal drivel."-JTK 21:01, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
- No problem, comrade. Barikada 21:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
The proper role of debate
Please do not use the talk pages to score ideological points. The Debate Topics are for that purpose, and if you want to start a debate, go ahead. Anyone can create a debate page like Conservapedia:Is the Bible accurate about science? - and if it's of general interest an admin will list it.
At Talk:Pi you said you weren't trying to start a fight, but then you used a debate tactic: you labeled Dan as "hostile to the Bible". My objections to this are:
- that's a way to start a fight, so you broke your promise
- it's a personal remark
The purpose of a talk page is to improve the article, not to put down other contributors. --Ed Poor Talk 09:07, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
- You have 3 new blocks and an hostile remark. Next one you will be blocked for several months. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
- Ed: I tried. It's very hard to reach a consensus without any form of debate. However, as per your wish, I will create a debate page related to the topic of vomit momentarily.
- Yes, Joaquin. I do have three blocks since you last upped my sentence. I did my time, Joaquin. If you believe I wasn't banned for long enough, Joaquin, there's nothing I can do to help you. Barikada
- You have 3 new blocks and an hostile remark. Next one you will be blocked for several months. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:34, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, you can and you know how. Just follow the rules. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:47, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
- I try and I try, and I still get accused of being a vandal and a troll, Joaquin. But as I said-- If you have an issue with the legnth of my previous blocks, I can't help you. Barikada 23:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, you can and you know how. Just follow the rules. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:47, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
