Comment posted on talk page for Commandments:
Seeing as you seem to be our resident Evolution Expert, I have a question. How Does evolution explain the instinct in bees to only harvest nectar from one kind of plant on any given day? According to the survival of the fittest, the bees should be going to the flowers closest to their hive so as to maximize the amount of nectar that they could gather in a day. --CJS 21:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)
- I don't want to be "resident evolution expert" if that means I'm supposed to "prove" evolution, or have a pat answer for everything, or anything like that. And, by the way, I love to argue, but I'm a stranger here and trying to be a polite guest.
- I don't know a specific answer to your specific question.
- So I'm going to answer your question with another question: how can you be sure that going to the closest flowers is really the best survival strategy? How can you be sure that what they actually do may not be better?
- Scientists have discovered some surprising things. You might wonder why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations. You'd think that according to Darwinism, the people without sickle-cell anemia would be fitter and that over time the population carrying the sickle-cell gene would be selected out. So, does the continued existence of the sickle-cell gene disprove Darwinism?
- It turns out that the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia only does so when there are two of them... and when there is only one of them, it provides protection against malaria! So, in places where there is malaria, there is selection for the sickle-cell gene. This benefits the population as a whole, because most members of the population only get one gene, so they get malaria protection without getting sickle-cell anemia. Only the unfortunate people who are homozygous for the gene get sickle-cell anemia.
- So, it may not be at all obvious what is really being selected for... in fact it may take a research study to discover it.
- So, with respect to the bees, the real scientist's question: how would you find out? What experiments could you perform to find out whether it is better for bees to go to the closest flowers than to go to the flowers they actually go to?
- (Pretty feeble, but the best I can do at short notice!) Dpbsmith 22:24, 15 January 2007 (EST)
- Reply: Evolutionists exaggerate the sickle-cell anemia example, though I don't fault Dpbsmith for repeating it. From the Mayo Clinic's website: "Sickle cell anemia is an inherited form of anemia — a condition in which there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout your body. Under normal circumstances, your red blood cells are flexible and round, and they move easily through your blood vessels to carry oxygen to all parts of your body. In people with sickle cell anemia, the red blood cells become rigid and sticky and are shaped like sickles or crescent moons. These irregular-shaped blood cells die prematurely, resulting in a chronic shortage of red blood cells. Plus, they can get stuck when traveling through small blood vessels, which can slow or block blood flow and oxygen to certain parts of the body. This produces pain and can lead to serious complications. There's no cure for most people with sickle cell anemia. However, treatments can relieve pain and prevent further problems." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sickle-cell-anemia/DS00324
- So sickle cell anemia is, overall, a harmful disease. And the disease itself does not protect against malaria, but those susceptible to the disease (e.g., have the gene) may be less vulnerable to malaria. I don't know if that's been proven but I have an open mind about it. Regardless, this does not support evolution in any way. There is no evidence that really has been "selection" for those afflicted with vulnerability to sickle cell anemia, and that suggestion seems highly unlikely. The link to evolution here remains a leap of faith. --Aschlafly 01:24, 16 January 2007 (EST)
- I happen to think that on the topic of evolution, the scientific community has allowed itself to become somewhat dogmatic and to claim too much about the explanatory value of the theory.
- And I also think the "science versus religion" aspect doesn't do much good for either science or religion. The Catholic Church's 1992 rehabilitation of Galileo was a good thing.
- P. S. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research whether or not a single allele of the sickle-cell anemia gene really protects against malaria. I think that's sound, but a lot of things that circulate as simple stories turn out to be a lot more complicated when you look into them. Dpbsmith 09:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)
Dpbsmith, I reflected further on your criticism, which was well-taken. Accordingly, I have changed the Commandment #4 in response to your criticism as follows: 4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, you must give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are not acceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis for the date.
Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to Conservapedia. --Aschlafly 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)
Feel free to respond there. Thanks!
--Aschlafly 12:34, 20 December 2006 (EST)
- Much better. Fine, in fact. Dpbsmith 13:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)
I moved our interesting debate about perpetual motion machines to its own talk page for that entry, in the hope it will enlighten and perhaps spark debate by others. I've marked that page as "Watch" now so I will be notified whenever you post to it.
Thanks. --Aschlafly 19:00, 1 January 2007 (EST)
Nice image of Phillip Brooks! --Aschlafly 20:08, 6 January 2007 (EST)
- Thanks. Dpbsmith 20:26, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Thanks for your entry on π. I improved the symbol using our LaTex capability. --Aschlafly 21:25, 13 January 2007 (EST)
I am sickened that this discussion on evolution is going on here, not that I agree with your views on it, but there are places to debate this other than a member's talk page. I just wanted to thank you for your conflicting, yet intelligent, contributions. We need more people like you. :) David R
- Well, thanks. But everybody on this talk page has been perfectly courteous. Dpbsmith 21:42, 17 January 2007 (EST)
- You're welcome. Dpbsmith 21:41, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Thanks for putting your two cents in on the 'spelling issue'. You certainly make more sense than the other person I was speaking to. --Katie 21:54, 19 January 2007 (EST)
I'm afraid that you're mistaken about the debates; they are available to anyone who has anything to say.
--BenjaminS 19:33, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah, the debates are for everyone. --TimSvendsen 19:39, 20 January 2007 (EST)
- OK, I'll consider that an invitation. Thank you. Dpbsmith 19:48, 20 January 2007 (EST)
You're right, I did mean protected -- not against. Thanks
--BenjaminS 13:57, 25 January 2007 (EST)
Thanks for your good improvement to my additional example of Wikipedia gossip (about John Tower). Your time reference is insightful. --Aschlafly 23:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)
- Oddly enough, I was just about to add something to it... a quotation from a New York Times editorial. Dpbsmith 20:52, 31 January 2007 (EST)
- Whoops! I didn't realize I had the font in blue. Thanks for catching that! ~ SharonS 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)
King James Bible
I have no idea what that last edit is about. Seems completely wrong. What the heck is "REAL Douay-Rheims?" Is it a reliable source? Seems to be pushing some point of view.
- Please don't revert corrections unless you have at least some source to back it. The ancient texts were lost at the time of the KJV; it couldn't be based on them. It is well known that the KJV borrowed from the Douay Old Testament. --Luke-Jr 11:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Dpbsmith, thanks for your reply. I don't know what happened to my Melville comments about its shift in popularity. That's OK, the entry looks great the way it is now. Please feel free to add to the content your fascinating material about the NY Times obituaries that you have on the talk page.--Aschlafly 19:01, 3 February 2007 (EST)
Work in progress
Kentish Sir Byng stood for his King,
Bidding the crop-headed Parliament swing:
And, pressing a troop unable to stoop
And see the rogues flourish and honest folk droop,
Marched them along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song.
God for King Charles! Pym and such carles
To the Devil that prompts `em their treasonous parles!
Cavaliers, up! Lips from the cup,
Hands from the pasty, nor bite take nor sup
CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song.
Hampden to hell, and his obsequies` knell
Serve Hazelrig, Fiennes, and young Harry as well!
England, good cheer! Rupert is near!
Kentish and loyalists, keep we not here
CHORUS.---Marching along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song?
Then, God for King Charles! Pym and his snarls
To the Devil that pricks on such pestilent carles!
Hold by the right, you double your might;
So, onward to Nottingham, fresh for the fight,
CHORUS.---March we along, fifty-score strong,
Great-hearted gentlemen, singing this song!
Kentish: the county of Kent was a Royalist stronghold.
Sir Byng: appears to be Browning's invention, not a real person.
Crop-headed: Oliver Cromwell and his followers were Puritans, and many of them wore their hair cut short, an unusual style at the time. See also Roundheads.
Parliament: Before the Civil War, the English Parliament did not play an important role in the government of England. The Civil War pitted Parliament against the King, with Parliament ultimately winning a much more powerful role. Parliament, and its supporters, the Parliamentarians, were the opponents of King Charles.
swing: i.e. Byng thought that the Parliamentarians should be hanged for treason.
Pym: John Pym (1584-1643), leader of the Long Parliament.
carles: variant of "churl," a rude, ill-bred person
parles: Words. Probably also intended to echo "Parliament."
Lips from the cup: Cavaliers are often portrayed as jolly, devil-may-care types who liked their wine, women, and song, as contrasted with the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical.
Hampden to hell: John Hampden, (1595—1643), a champion of Parliament.
Rupert: Prince Rupert, the German nephew of King Charles, who led a thousand Royalists in a cavalry battle against the Parliamentarians at the Battle of Powick Bridge.
Onward to Nottingham:
On second thought you're probably right; I unblocked him.
Thanks for the heads up.
--BenjaminS 13:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)
Why do you and JoshuaZ keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --TimSvendsen 11:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- Hmmm... I thought I had seen that somewhere, but I guess you're telling me it's a mistake. The original article in Wikipedia said "It was created by a World History class of 58 homeschooled teenagers." So I guess I should say "teenager," not "middle-schooler." Sorry.
- It's not directly relevant to any debate, but it certainly affects my understanding of the site, the project, what's appropriate, and how I should interact with other users. Dpbsmith 12:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- "Teenager" would be accurate. There are not many non-teenage middle-schoolers, though they are certainly welcome also. Also, as time goes by, many of the original teenagers are quickly becoming adults.
- Somewhere else someone (Joshua, I think) speculated that the requirement that entries be clean here was motivated by the age of many users. That's certainly a consideration that sometimes is important. But the bigger reason is to keep the entries on a high level, just as a real encyclopedia would.--Aschlafly 12:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)
- I don't know what you mean by a high level in that regard. Britannica has articles on articles on human reproductive systems that I imagine you might consider inappropriate to have articles about and a variety of other, arguably even more "unclean" topics. It isn't clear to me what "cleanliness" has to do with high-mindedness (indeed, I would be tempted argue that if one is sufficiently high-minded everything becomes clean as they are just different parts of God's Creation). JoshuaZ 12:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)
No need to "pretend" thanks for the catching that mistake. JoshuaZ 16:44, 15 February 2007 (EST)
Appreciation for work on Robert Frost
Nice work on improving the Robert Frost entry!--Aschlafly 17:21, 17 February 2007 (EST)
Some good edits were caught up and lost in your recent deletions, please be more careful. Harpie snark 14:50, 23 February 2007 (EST)
IP or SYSOP?
We'd really like to make you a SYSOP, Dpbsmith. With more SYSOPs, we could then reopen new registrations and handle in influx of vandals more easily. You could recommend others to be SYSOP also. You could relinquish SYSOP power at any time, or simply choose not to exercise your powers.
Otherwise, I don't see how to protect your IP from blocking unless you can email it to us at email@example.com, as just suggested by another SYSOP.
I hope you can become a SYSOP!--Aschlafly 07:54, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- I very much appreciate the invitation, but I decline... I enjoy writing articles. I enjoy collaborative interaction. I enjoy spirited argument between people willing to play fair, maintain some level of civility, and take the risk of having their opinions changed.
- I don't enjoy fighting vandals and don't want to do the heavy lifting. When the system isn't too slow it's almost as easy to revert an article "manually" as by clicking "rollback" which is 90% of fighting vandalism, anyway.
- (I know you don't believe it, but Wikipedia's stability rests more on the community of editors than the sysops, and Conservapedia's best shot at staying ahead of the vandals is to attract a sufficiency of ordinary editors.)
- Thanks again. Dpbsmith 08:43, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- I would suggest reconsidering this offer. You do not have to spend your time fighting vandals, someone else will catch them if you don't. You are one af our most valued editors, and I personally would like you to have the ability to edit the protected pages. I am sure that i am not alone in this. --CPAdmin1 16:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm fine with your edits (I would argue that decimal representations are always infinite but this may be a nitpick). The main causes of the pain were the previous article insisting that the reals contain "infinite values" and the notion that the real numbers *exclude* anything (since if one wants to talk about them that way, one might as well say they exclude cows and deities). Regarding your other comments, I'm not sure of a general name for the procedure, however the motivation for going to the reals that a mathematician would most likely give is that one wants to be able to take limits. As for infinities, that's complicated and can be dealt with in a variety of different ways depending on what one means by infinity. Wikipedia has a few good articles on these topics. I would recommend cardinal arithmetic ordinal number tended reals and surreal numbers as different examples of ways of incorporating infinity. JoshuaZ 19:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)
"What was your rationale for this edit? Dpbsmith 10:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)"
Dpb, not many people know this, but every member of the College of Cardinals is automatically a Doctor of Divinity. Other degrees are also possible, though they would normally be granted through one of the several Pontifical Academies. But in every case, cardinals would already have an undergraduate degree that they received in the process of becoming priests. (Although, technically, a non-priest could become a cardinal; however, this has not happened since the Middle Ages, before the College of Cardinals was founded).
Earth article unprotection
Thank you for your kind request. I composed a lengthy response to you but unfortunately it was lost due to Conservapedia "hiccuping" and me not saving it. I will remove the protection now. Again, thank you for your kind request. Conservative 16:00, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Yeah, that's why I said "roughly" JoshuaZ 11:12, 4 March 2007 (EST)
Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article
Your thanks is appreciated regarding my making Conservapedia more factual in regards to the Intelligent Design article and I wanted to let you know I changed my edit again in order to make it more precise. Conservative 19:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Articles For Deletion
When posting for AFD please create an AFD page for the page in question. --TimSvendsen 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)
It has been suggested to me that you are someone who knows what he/she is doing on this site. I am having trouble uploading an image file. Are you able to help? --Horace 20:03, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Believe me, I have no idea what I am doing on this site!
- Image uploading is very flaky. I get error messages about two-thirds of the time. I have no idea why and haven't bothered to ask. What seems to help is changing the filename, i.e. if it doesn't work try changing the name. But maybe that's just coincidence. Dpbsmith 20:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Thanks. --Horace 20:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I trust your judgement regarding the prison delete it
I trust your judgement regarding the prison material so delete it. I can't investigate the material right now and block possible parody people because i am researching something for Andy. Let me know if you get into a edit war. Conservative 22:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I permanently banned the troll Christian Concern
I permanently banned the troll "Christian Concern". No need to get Andy involved. Conservative 22:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative
- While you revel in that block, please block another harmful user - (explicative)Saddam. It would be greatly appreciated. --<<-David R->> 22:32, 10 March 2007 (EST)
the homeschooling thing
No, I in fact did not read the line you sent me, as I was not aware of it. The word that stuck out as making the whole insulting was "schizophrenic", and that made it sound as though Conservapedia should be treated with contempt.
But after reading your follow-ups, I don't think you intended that at all, so it is me who should be apologizing. And I do. So now, let's get our collective posteriors in gear and make it better than it is. Karajou 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Bible article improvements
Although it needs some filling in regarding the subheadings mentioned in the talk page, that article itself was improved to the point of being original. Check it out. Karajou 21:24, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I've seen too many articles here that suffer from lack of info; it was like someone created an article, threw in a single sentence, pronouced it good, then left. I don't like working like that! There will be additional info and pics added before the week is out to make it look better. Karajou 21:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
a few questions...
- a) First, Conservapedia has a policy of original material only, no copying (except short, properly attributed quotations, of course).
- and where may I have found this "policy"? its not on The Conservapedia Commandments page...
- b) Second, the GFDL license does not allow re-use of GFDL material unless you follow the GFDL rules. Conservapedia itself does not license its material under the GFDL, so re-using it here breaks one of the most important GFDL rules.
- so if conservapedia does not use the GFDL (which I should have realized, my apologies), and there is not a link to the license in use in the lower-left corner like most mediawiki-based sites have, what license is the content of conservapedia under?
|frijole. This, as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the license page for more information.|
hey, thanks a lot for your replies about my questions. apologies if I came off argumentative at the start, it was uncalled for. You really went above and beyond in your replies, and again, thanks.
Nice work. That's probably the most professional-looking article on the site. --Dave3172 09:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative blocking AmesG
Based on what has occured between them, this is an egregious abuse of power. Can't another SysOp referee this? --Dave3172 16:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- If you're asking me to referee... I'm not a sysop here. Dpbsmith 16:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I am lobbying to have the evolution page openned up. Would you lend your voice to the cause? I started a topic ("Rallying point") on the Talk Theory of evolution page. --Horace 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, thanks. There are some areas in which I try to say my piece, make sure I've been heard, and then move on. I've written off this topic as one of the areas where Conservapedia has bees in its bonnet. I'll try to fix factual errors I notice on pages I happen to come to, and, hey, there are plenty of unprotected pages to work on. Conservapedia doesn't do itself any good with the extreme creationist stuff. Maybe they'll figure that out eventually. Aschlafly's comments on NPR sounds more like the idea is to give suppressed conservative points of view an airing than exclusively promoting a conservative point of view... actions speak louder than words, though... Dpbsmith 06:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- (Shrug) I find it interesting to collaborate with people who have a commitment to truth, accuracy, and honesty, but have a different viewpoint from mine. I don't find it interesting to collaborate with the sorts of people called "POV warriors" at Wikipedia, who think they're doing something useful by just putting the maximum amount of spin on everything.
- It's much more fun writing about Rainbows.
- BTW I'm not really sure where Aschlafly thinks he's going with all this... or whether there are others besides him "running" things... but I don't care much for perma-protected pages under the supervision of single editors it they think their job is to present a one-dimensional point of view. As opposed to, say, preventing vandalism, maintaining whatever Conservapedia thinks is proper balance, but acknowledging multiple points of view in some intellectually-honest way.
- I'm not interested in reading articles on the topic of "every bad thing I can think of to say about homosexuality," for example... Dpbsmith 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- P. S. Global warming is a particularly interesting case in point, because I expect to see this "debate" resolved within my lifetime. In fact, in a couple of decades I don't think it will be controversial. I don't expect to see new species evolve in my lifetime, but I do expect to see at least one coastal city abandoned in my lifetime. Dpbsmith 10:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. Yes, I share much these same views. In the case of global warming, however, I'm not so certain it's a liberal vs conservative arguement, and I'm concerned the page is being used as an attack page. It probably has to be overhauled at some point. RobS 10:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
But yours was funny
- Thanks, but I decided that in the final analysis it still amounted to namecalling. Actually, I was thinking of your joke and thought: hmmm, if I'm going to lecture other people about this maybe I should try to do what I say myself.
- Also I finally figured out how Aschlafly gets to that "6," and it is defensible. No point fussing about that part. The squishy part is how you get 2:1 from "33% conservative, 40% moderate, 18% liberal." What's even squishier is how you get 1:3 out of the facts that at Wikipedia there has been a bit of a fad for "user boxes," little colored boxes that people can put on their page if they wish to advertise their personal tastes in food ("This user drinks coffee,") music ("This user is a fan of Green Day,") or politics ("This user is interested in conservative issues.") Of three million registered users, 78 decided to put a "Conservative" tag on their page and 202 put a "Liberal" tag on their page.
- I figure this is just one of the areas where Aschlafly has a bee in his bonnet. Or thinks its justified because it gets attention. Just not an area where it is productive to say anything more. Dpbsmith 18:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry about the incorrect information. I seem to have mixed up a series of compositions, the most egregious being Bach's Goldberg Variations with Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. Thank you for fixing the article. Scriabin 20:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry to have wondered whether you could be a prankster. The other article I was trying to merge with this one was definitely a prank, and mixed correct and misleading information, so when I saw this one did too, I wasn't sure what to think. Dpbsmith 20:29, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Your comment invited
Davinci code blanking - check the history - page was vandalised.
Thanks for putting up with a newbie...
The pages I am creating are called Doppelganger accounts, and I have taken it up with Aschlafly (it's the bottom topic on his talk page as of right now). Wikipedia describes it here, in a nutshell, it's a pre-emptive measure to make sure people do not imitate those famous or obscene names. I created the accounts also, and stored the passwords safely. --Hojimachongtalk 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- OK. Looked very odd... Dpbsmith 05:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Lochness Monster and "the board"
I really haven't researched the Loch Ness Monster controversy. What's wrong with the material there now? I haven't read it.
Re: "The Board" - This is a mistake on my part. This site is not a internet discussion board. Conservative 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I knew you were referring to the Dino article. What is your beef with the Loch Ness monster?
I knew you were referring to the Dino article. I skimmed the Loch Ness monster material before you sent your note. What is your beef with the Loch Ness monster? I really haven't researched the Loch Ness monster issue. Conservative 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Dpbsmith, I briefly looked into the whole Loch Ness Monster issue. I think the best way to handle it is to provide a sentence saying some people think Nessy is credible and then provide a sentence saying some people don't. Each sentence should have links/footnotes so people can decide for themselves. I am not too interested in the whole Nessy debate but I wanted to be fair to you. I created an internal link in the Dino article. By that I mean, I created a Loch Ness Monster link. You can have at that article which links to the Dino article. Out of that article I think will come the best "pro" and "con" links. Conservative 19:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I stiil think the best solution is to find the best link(s) for pro and footnote it and find best footnote for con. I think that will happen as the article in question progresses. Perhaps, you can go to the dreaded and stenchy place Wikipedia and find the best links! LOL They seem to have a long article giving the pros and cons. However, I think we can probably find better links than Wikipedia if we try as I have often found that to be the case when I was a Wikipedian. Conservative 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thanks for sorting that out, I couldn't be bothered :) Though I still think the original article should be deleted rather than a redirect, because a redirect makes it look like it's a legitimate alternative. So I've put the speedy delete template back, and fixed the two articles that had links to "abbreviationism". --JamesK 11:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good. Thanks. Dpbsmith 11:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, sorry, I hadn't read you comment on the abbreviationism talk page where you had just said exactly the same thing! --JamesK 11:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Hey, thanks for your attention to the Brown U. entry. I think it's a much better article now -- but could you link the "citation needed" on the slavery issue to the reference at the end (I have never figured out how to do numbered references in a wiki, sad to say ... they always seem to format badly when I do them!). Boethius
- Thanks!!!! Boethius
- Very nice improvement on the Brown entry. *Much* better than before. --Hsmom 15:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I am so glad you are here. Your thoughtful and deep comments, as well as your carefully considered, informative article contributions inspire me to follow your example. --Ed Poor 11:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry if I confused you
I blanked the Talk page for the flagellum article because I had originally thought I couldn't edit the article so I posted it on the Talk page instead. When I realised I could edit the article, I simply transferred the article to the proper page and deleted the (identical) article on the Talk page. I don't see any point in having it there twice. Britinme9:54 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- OK, not problem. Always include an edit comment in the summary box when you're making a large change on a page. Dpbsmith 05:56, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
See this edit
J. Edwin Orr
I just got your message on the wikipedia article
I was under the impression it was deleted for non-notability.
It appears I spoke too soon.
- Oh, no wonder he didn't answer. Thanks. --Ed Poor 06:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I not sure that making an edit war between a sysop and a non-sysop go to a different sysop. Sysops have authority for a reason, and I don't think that thier work should be held up while they have to go find another sysop to block the offending user. That is my oppinion, but i am open to discuss and possibly change it. --CPAdmin1 19:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a comment as you requested
I posted a comment in the evo talk as you requested. Conservative 21:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Ok...thank you. My bad. --<<-David R->> 11:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)