User talk:Eoinc

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 References 2 Not Wikipedia 3 Re: Not Wikipedia 4 Why did you remove this user's talkpage edit?

References

I see that you're still trying to learn about references.

You can tag a reference in the middle of an article this way: <ref>...</ref>

You then place the references at a specific location in the article with this tag: <references/>

Or, if you have enough references to fill a page, you can use the template called {{reflist}}. This template, by default, displays your references in a smaller font, in a single column. It takes a single optional parameter, a number, and will then display your references in that number of columns on Mozilla Firefox and other Netscape-derived browsers.

We also have a pair of templates that we use for citing the Bible.

{{Bible ref}} creates an automatic external link to <http://www.biblegateway.com> so that interested readers can look up the reference there.

{{Bible quote}} does the same thing but takes as an additional parameter the actual Bible text and puts it all inside a gray quote box.

You can look up Template:Bible ref and Template:Bible quote for details on how those templates work, and the named parameters that they take.--TerryH^Talk 06:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Not Wikipedia

As at Wikipedia, it's considered poor form here to start an edit war. Rather than responding to a revert with yet another revert, you'd better discuss your reasoning first and get consensus. You may possibly also be unaware that sysops here have editorial authority. Don't do any more reversions - in any article - without prior discussion. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:20, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Re: Not Wikipedia

You posted the following on my talk page (I wasn't sure whether to respond here or there, so I chose here)

As at Wikipedia, it's considered poor form here to start an edit war. Rather than responding to a revert with yet another revert, you'd better discuss your reasoning first and get consensus. You may possibly also be unaware that sysops here have editorial authority. Don't do any more reversions - in any article - without prior discussion.

It is not my intention to start any edit wars. And. with respect, I did give detailed reasons, when I reverted, why I stand by first edit and why I believe it was right to revert.

Meanwhile, on the Censorship talk page, you wrote:

I hope the irony of censoring opposing views is not escaping you. We welcome alternatives to conservative POV around here, provided they are properly labeled. When it comes to controversial issues, unmarked ideas are either common knowledge or distinctly conservative, but liberal ideas don't get the same respect. So tread carefully.

I am not trying to censor any opposing views. In fact, since censorship is usually carried out by people in a position of authority, I (a mere individual) cannot censor a website that I do not control, even if I wanted to. My removal of the examples given was done because I felt there were stronger, less arguable, more "textbook" examples of censorship which were better suited to an introductory article on the concept of censorship than the ones given. Certainly, there is nothing liberal about the examples I provided instead. And the examples I replaced would have been just as weak if they had applied to liberal college students or liberal newspapers. Eoinc 12:16, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

You are making more than one mistake.

1. Generally, on a wiki, it's more convenient to reply where spoken to.
2. I said, "discuss your reasoning first and get consensus". Your reply sidesteps this.
3. My comments had nothing to do with power but about your removal of information.

Think it over for a few days, and if you want to help us you may come back then. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Why did you remove this user's talkpage edit?

Talk page edits should generally not be removed by another user, unless it is a clear violation of the stated rules. How did you deem this to be parody when it is basically the exact same response (perhaps, even milder) as the site owner's subsequent reply? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSamuelson (talk)-- 14:49, 6 April 2009

The parodist had signed up only moments before making that as their first post, and its style was strongly similar to other parodies I have seen. The key difference is not the content of the message, but the sincerity (or otherwise) of the person writing it. If I violated the rules of the site by removing it, I apologise. --Eoinc 18:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

I am wondering who JSamuelson is to be asking. Oh well. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 19:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Just another parodist that you sent packing ;-) --DeanS^talk 19:53, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

LOL! I am fearful at times that I am becoming too droll! --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 20:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)