- 1 If you like doing administrative tasks
- 2 Quick note
- 3 re: abortion and CP
- 4 Quick question
- 5 Project
- 6 re: Bankster
- 7 Math talk page
- 8 vandal attack
- 9 Due to a technical glitch, all non-administrator accounts cannot edit Conservapedia. We are working to fix this problem
- 10 re: Encyclopedia of Conservatism
- 11 Philosophy of categories
- 12 Cquote - don't delete.
If you like doing administrative tasks
If you like doing administrative tasks, there are a lot of orphan pages that need to be linked to from other pages. You can find the list of them here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=0 Conservative 16:16, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
- I started the work by deorphanizing the African Burial Ground article. Conservative 16:22, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
- Alright. I already started to de-orphan some pages.--JoeyJ 09:53, 12 October 2014 (EDT)
Thanks for telling me about the Atheists and belief in fate and in intelligent design article not having category tags. I just put in the category tags.
Second, if you see improvements that can be made on articles that I created, feel free to make the necessary improvements. Conservative 10:39, 26 November 2014 (EST)
- I will do so, but in this case the page was protected.--JoeyJ 11:49, 26 November 2014 (EST)
- I forgot to unprotect it after featuring it on the main page. My mistake. Conservative 12:17, 26 November 2014 (EST)
re: abortion and CP
Would you be willing to create a resource at Abortion essays which would be a link page to the best essays on the internet relating to abortion?
You could have sections on the page dealing with different abortion topics. Conservative 15:21, 3 December 2014 (EST)
- I don´t know, whether I will found enough essays on the internet, but I could try it.--JoeyJ 09:40, 4 December 2014 (EST)
Do you have picture uploading rights? Conservative 14:44, 19 December 2014 (EST)
- Nope.--JoeyJ 17:00, 19 December 2014 (EST)
- OK. Thanks for letting me know. I will see what I can do. Conservative 17:37, 19 December 2014 (EST)
Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.
The topic could be decided by the editors participating.
re: Bankster article. TAR is involved in attending to some personal matters for awhile, but plans on returning. So write your specific objections and their rationale on the talk page. Conservative 15:17, 29 January 2015 (EST)
Math talk page
OK, you (and Wschact) were right. I was applying the principles that (1) you never delete talk page material unless it is libelous, and (2) people need to see the kind of rubbish that goes on. Well, they don't. The principle (3) don't give idiots their 5 minutes of fame trumps the other two. SamHB 13:59, 8 February 2015 (EST)
I hope someone with block powers is paying attention. SamHB 00:08, 12 February 2015 (EST)
Due to a technical glitch, all non-administrator accounts cannot edit Conservapedia. We are working to fix this problem
Due to a technical glitch, all non-administrator accounts cannot edit Conservapedia. We are working to fix this problem.
Our apologies for the inconvenience. Conservative 07:36, 8 May 2015 (EDT)
re: Encyclopedia of Conservatism
I am involved in some projects right now and the owner of the website is tackling some ObamaCare related lawsuit. If you want to head up this project Conservapedia:Encyclopedia of Conservatism feel free to do so. I would do so, but I have to keep my promises related to the projects I am involved in.
Andy expressed interest in doing conservative entries for such a project, but again I think this ObamaCare lawsuit is keeping him very busy right now. Conservative 06:14, 25 May 2015 (EDT)
Philosophy of categories
I'd like to say a few things about my philosophy of how categories should be done. Actually, I'm aware of a lot of discussion of the topic, but I don't know where to find the "manual of style" on the subject, because finding help pages is so very hard. If you could point me at the appropriate page, so that I could see what I may be doing wrong and/or what I'm up against, I'd appreciate that.
There seems to be something of a belief that pages should be in only one category in a hierarchy of categories. This is wrong, and here is why.
I'm going to use some esoteric mathematical things as examples, guessing that they may not be well known to you, so that you will "feel the pain" of someone trying to find his way around. You've heard of something called a "regular space", and you want to know more about it. Well, actually, if it were that simple, you would just type "regular space", and there you would be. So let's think about a less straightforward case. You're browsing around in categories, and, if the phrase "regular space" jumped out at you, you'd find that interesting, and you'd go there and learn something. So suppose you are in the mathematics category, looking around for interesting things. Alas, "regular space" isn't there. The person who wrote that article would probably have liked you to find it.
- By the way, it wasn't me; it was "pixologic" back in 2007. I consider stuff like that to be way too esoteric for Conservapedia, and a number of other people, like Ed Poor, agree with me. I won't waste my time on that sort of thing. But that's all ancient history by now.
So what's going on? "Regular space" is only in the topology category. You didn't know that, so you missed it. Now the topology category is a subcategory of mathematics, but, when browsing mathematics, you shouldn't have to follow all the subcategories. And it doesn't help that the first page of the mathematics category only lists the first 200 items, which goes through "I". You have to click on "next 200" twice before you get to the "T"s and can see the topology category, and click on it, and see all the stuff in there.
I believe that the topology articles (there are 55 of them) should also be listed directly under mathematics. That would make the mathematics category go up from 426 to 481, but once you scrolled through it, you'd see everything that might strike your fancy in mathematics.
- Go through all 55 of those and add the mathematics category? No, not worth it. No one cares about those. But what I'm going to say below, about relativity, is worth doing right, because they are important articles.
The preceding scenario may sound far-fetched, but I've been in that situation many times. I like to browse. And I don't like to have to do a "tree search", as we computer science folks call it, when I'm browsing. The "Regular space" article should be in both the mathematics category and the topology category.
Does this mean that everything has to be in every category? Of course not. One needs to apply common sense. One should be able to figure out, for a given article, what categories it should be in. This requires common sense and some good knowledge of the subject area. I recently reworked the categories of some electronic terms (inductor, alternating current, etc.) to put them into what I consider a good choice of categories. (If you disagree with my choices, feel free to change things. This is a wiki.) I also took out some excessive stuff about "wind energy" etc. Much more needs to be done—the connection between Ampere's_law and the wind energy category is utterly ridiculous.
The reason I bring this up now is that you recently took out the physics category from several articles involving relativity. That is wrong. These things should be in both relativity and physics. (And maybe science, and mechanics, etc., but I'm not going to argue that.) This is especially true of Galilean relativity. Galilean relativity is not about Einsteinian relativity, that is, what most people think of when they hear "relativity". It's the classical concept, espoused by Galileo, that Einsteinian relativity built upon.
E=mc^2? Both physics and relativity. Really. Just do it.
I see that you are revamping other categories involving mechanics. I won't interfere or second-guess you; I know you do good work. But I just wanted to make some comments about my philosophy of categories.
SamHB 02:09, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
Cquote - don't delete.
Joey, Template:Cquote is listed in the Category:Speedy deletion candidates category for some unknown reason, and apparently no one intended to place it there either, so please don't delete it! I spoke with Conservative at Conservapedia:Community Portal, and he advised me to alert active admins. Thank you, VargasMilan 20:58, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
- Ok, I already noticed that this template was proposed to delete, but I refused to delete it.--JoeyJ 07:21, 11 June 2015 (EDT)