User talk:JeffT

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, JeffT, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, JeffT!

ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Lifelong Catholic. Hardcore conservative.

I will fight for factual accuracy even if it is unappreciated or gets me kicked out of here.

Factual accuracy

Factual accuracy is good, and will be appreciated but making personal remarks will get you kicked out. Also, try to distinguish between debating and working on articles. If you have an idea to improve an article, propose it in a humble way, rather than in an overbearing or offensive way. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

See also this warning. --Ed Poor Talk 12:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)

Ed, my remarks were utterly impersonal. Everyone should agree that anyone who intentionally misrepresents facts is being deceitful. And it is very difficult to distinguish between debating and working on articles because rigorous explanations are demanded for factual changes. If I came off as offensive, I apologize for that. It was not my intention. My intention was to improve the factual accuracy of the article. Thanks, JeffT 16:12, 16 February 2010 (EST)
Facts are as facts do, JeffT. Talk to 100 scientists and you will get 100 different responses, all slightly different than the others. Same with linguists and translations. We are a U.S., conservative and Christian project. Editors accepting our POV are welcome, those who do not, are not so much. If you wish the same type of fact-obscuring encyclopedia as Wikipedia your efforts might be better accepted there. If you come here with the idea you are here to "save us" from ourselves, your mission has already failed. I urge you to open your mind to the will set you free! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:48, 16 February 2010 (EST)
TK, if you could help me understand these problems, I would very much appreciate it. I really dont understand what is going on. The facts are: It is not a fact that Amy Bisbop murdered her brother. It is a fact that the article is about a particular type of murder. It is a fact that Amy Bishop is not young. Could you please help me? Thanks, JeffT 17:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)
My IM contact information is listed at the top of my user page, Jeff. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:36, 16 February 2010 (EST)
The liberal Boston Globe disagrees with you, Jeff:
  • The University of Alabama biology professor accused of opening fire and killing three colleagues at a faculty meeting Friday shot and killed her teenage brother more than two decades ago in Massachusetts, according to authorities. [1]
But you think the "authorities" are not to be trusted, we can always add according to authorities to the article. --Ed Poor Talk 13:45, 17 February 2010 (EST)
Hi Ed, you seem to be confused. No one is contesting that she killed her brother. As Mr. Schlafly pointed out, the article is about a specific type of murder and it is simply not fact that Bishop murdered her brother. Thanks, JeffT 15:51, 17 February 2010 (EST)

The Word of the Day is: • pedantic --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:26, 17 February 2010 (EST)

The difference between murder and killing far exceeds pedantry, TK; they are not to be conflated. If you would like to discuss this, I would be glad to participate. Factual accuracy is worth the hassle. JeffT 16:39, 17 February 2010 (EST)
Oh, now I see. When you said it wasn't a fact that she murdered her brother, you weren't denying that she killed him. You meant that her act of fratricide was not ruled a murder. --Ed Poor Talk 17:38, 17 February 2010 (EST)
Sorry for any ambiguity. What you said is correct, Mr. Poor, and as Mr. Schlafly and I agree, the article in question is about murder. We should all agree that none of us are in the position to call it a murder, therefore we cannot state as fact that Amy Bishop started her rampage while young. Thanks again for bearing with me. I know I've been somewhat of a burden here and I assure you that was not my intention. I merely wish to strive for factual accuracy on a resource that has grown to the point of not only representing, but reflecting on conservatives. JeffT 18:40, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Since a shotgun has to be reloaded after each shot, to fire it three times and call that a "mistaken shooting", and therefore not murder, is silly in the extreme. The fact that she ran, pointed the gun at several other people, tried to steal a car to make a get-away, all adds up to murder. Conservatives don't need to touch an oven to know it is hot, JeffT. This isn't a court of law, nothing needs to be "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:14, 17 February 2010 (EST)

Hi, TK. Semi-automatic shotguns have been produced since 1905. Since your claim that this was murder is not verifiable, it does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if you insist on making that speculation, I would follow Mr. Poor's suggestion: "[if] you think the authorities are not to be trusted, we can always add according to authorities to the article". Thanks, JeffT 11:42, 18 February 2010 (EST)

Your tone lacks the necessary humility we expect from new contributors. It's also self-contradictory. Take a week off and consider whether this is the project for you. --Ed Poor Talk 10:35, 20 February 2010 (EST)