User talk:SSchultz

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 Constitution 2 Citations 3 Richard Dawkins 4 Double Crested Cormorant 5 Writer's Guild of America 6 Contest 7 Please Read 8 Resignation 9 HPV vaccine 10 Warning 11 SSchultz 12 Categorization 13 Support

Constitution

Don't ignore governmental interpretations of the Constitution when trying to determine what a specific Amendment says. This is an educational site, not your personal utopia. Thank you. --TGlennRet 01:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You're right re: Lemon. Thanks. Your adversary may have been blocked, by the way.--Aschlafly 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Citations

• Please read our CP Manual of Style and other documents for what constitutes encyclopedic sources to document your edits, please. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 02:09, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins

Why did you revert my edits in the Richard Dawkins article? All I did was format links! Please don't undo someone else's work like that... If you want to change something from several edits ago you can always find it in the history. Feebasfactor 23:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

• Feel free to restore your formatting, with my permission, Feeb. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 02:09, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Double Crested Cormorant

No more jokes. --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:25, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't a joke, actually. I realize my mistake now. I guess I need to get *my* mind out of the gutter.  ;-) Perhaps we could put "Booby birds" instead of boobies? SSchultz 21:02, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

• Maturity, growing older, will take care of the problem, IMO. ;-) --şŷŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:07, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Writer's Guild of America

See my note at Talk:Writer's Guild of America. Rob Smith 01:09, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Contest

Hey SSchultz! So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--IDuan00:00, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: Supply Siders  --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:54, 11 November 2007 (EST)

• SSchultz, I stand in shock and awe of your tremendous team contributions, and by extension to Conservapedia! Very well done! --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:25, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Wow ... I don't think I have to edit for the rest of the contest - you could win on your own lol - awesome job!--IDuan 16:27, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I told you I had a plan. And this is just Day 1. We will bury them. SSchultz 16:29, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Not here not listening...Please don't bury me...unless it's in money! Good luck against our wrath...we like to torture you! --~BCS^Talk2ME 16:30, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Stop! Stop! Please make it stop! Can I block you? *evil grin* Just kidding!--~BCS^Talk2ME 16:34, 12 November 2007 (EST)

10 entries x 3 points = 300 points (in what alternate universe?) --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:07, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, it should have been 100 entries x 3 points, but thanks to you I recounted to be sure, and it's actually 101 entries, so thanks for the extra 3 points! SSchultz 18:10, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Teammates help each other. :-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Hey - just to let you know Andy has challenged your point system - it's on our team's talk page--IDuan 19:12, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Blocked for 1 day. You can't spam the site with junk like that and claim 768 points. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

No one is accusing him of spamming except you Ed - I've unblocked. The only objection andy raised was whether they should be considered most wanted or not.--IDuan 20:31, 12 November 2007 (EST)

His contributions seems to be OK. At the end we can watch it more carefully. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:40, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Does this mean I can't claim points for the block? ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:43, 12 November 2007 (EST)

You need to block sysops Ed... Then you guys can just keep unblocking each other! ;-) Learn together 20:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)

• I think both Ed and I were mistaken in thinking what Schultz did was any worse than the wholesale copy and pasting down in other contests. Someone posted just a silly list of registered ships in one of them, without more than a sentence of information, never categorized them at all. That wasn't considered unfair. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

At first I thought the block was a joke to tease him for getting so many points. I believe the difficult thing for him when he comes back will be understanding what is acceptable and what is not. Past precedent of acceptability has not been used in this case. Learn together 14:51, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, come back! This is not over... --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:41, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Please Read

Hello SSchultz,

Thank you for your strong efforts in the contest, but please be aware that the standards for article acceptability have changed. You are very quick, but it is preferred that articles are "wikified" with at least one or more links or any alterations that show that thought was given to how the article fits into the Conservapedia setup and effort made so that it does so. Please follow this guideline in the future.

Thanks

Learn together 04:56, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Well, I disagree with the idea of changing the rules midstream, but nevertheless, I have gone through my entires and removed anything that might be considered "junk." Additionally, I have wikified at least one link in each article (and in many cases more than just one) and I have categorized all the articles. I intend to start pasting my offline work now. Additionally, I did not have the chance to add my points for my edits from last night, so I'll add those on to today's edits. SSchultz 22:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

The contest is made to be fluid. You can be pleased that you excelled based upon the starting setup, but now it's time to work within the overall picture of what is desired. If you can take your strong success in creating entries and see about editing them individually, then that would go a long way. The important thing now is to match a level of quality to your strong quantity output. So for instance you have entries like Internal Temperature. That term can have a usage in cooking, but really it has a broader useage that is being ignored. That's probably not an entry that should be included. I have used the category 'Food Terms' for many of your entries. You need to tailor the category to match what you are presenting. Also, only highlight a word once within an article, not each time it is used. That will make your entries have more quality.

Again, thanks for your strong effort, but we need to be flexible. You'll still be producing, and your product will improve Conservapedia and make Andy happy.

I hope this helps Learn together 12:56, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Resignation

I've made the decision after much consultation with my team captain to resign from the team contest. Despite my best efforts to comply with the rules of the contest, and having made 2 adjustments to my editing technique, I've been told in no uncertain terms that my contributions are not welcome. It's clear that my copying and pasting of articles from government sites is not acceptable, even thought this has been common practice in past contests. At first, I was told that using a template to increase my score was not acceptable, then I was told that my copies were unacceptable because they were unformatted, and now I am being told that my entires don't meet some undefined encylopedic standard. Additionally, my night edit rights have been suspended for absolutely no reason. I cannot compete in a contest where the rules are changed on a whim, and prior precedents are irrelevant.

The fact is that through a fair amount of offline work and a few simple macros I'm able to enter information into the wiki at great speed. My speed and efficiency was in fact admired by both my teammates and members of the other team in the early part of the contest, and it was clear that my team was going to be able to put up a great deal more points than the competition. At this point, certain people on the other team began to question my motives and I found the goal posts being moved. I was blocked 3 separate times essentially for contributing too much, and I'm left to wonder if I was on the other team if my contributions would have been met with hostility.

I have every intention of continuing to contribute to the site, but I am done with this contest. I've totalled my final points for my team, and wish them the best of luck. SSchultz 22:14, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Anyway you were the champion of this contest. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:23, 18 November 2007 (EST)

HPV vaccine

If you're not still mad at me about the contest, would you like to join an experiment in "draft collaboration"? I moved the HPV vaccine article to Talk:Gardasil/draft, as explained at user talk:Aschlafly. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Check out the protection log for articles I unprotected in the last week. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:01, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Which is a fine gesture, but I'm sure you'll agree that certain individuals revert any changes to certain articles regardless of whether or not the article is formally protected. SSchultz 14:30, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Warning

Don't name-call here ("quack rag") or your account will be blocked. Go somewhere else if you want to engage in that kind of idiotic name-calling.--Aschlafly 20:26, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Schultz, I don't want to gang up on you, but the AAPS is Aschlafly's organization! While namecalling is... in general... a bad idea, I can't imagine what would possess you to personally insult the website's owner. It's clearly meant only to provoke and not to contain substance, and that's not the spirit with which to approach Conservapedia.-MexMax 20:29, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Well, that explains *everything* doesn't it. And, Andy, does calling someone a liberal, or a provocateur count as name calling? I'd say "physician, heal thyself" but I wouldn't trust an AAPS doctor to treat a skinned knee. Quack Quack Quack. SSchultz 22:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

SSchultz

Consider the warning I gave you in the block you're only warning - you've become excessively aggressive to the point that your insulting users with accusations. Either cool off or I will block you indefinitely.--IDuan 13:50, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Categorization

That's not an appropriate category for Obamacan - you should know better--IDuan 00:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

My mistake: you didn't put it there -it's the template, sorry--IDuan 00:20, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry again - let's try one more time shall we? lol, When doing categories - you do not put them in curly brackets - so the correct way of putting an article in Category:Politics would be [[Category:Politics]] not {{Category:Politics}} --IDuan 00:21, 25 February 2008 (EST)

No problem, Iduan. Remember: Never ascribe to malice what you can ascribe to incompetence. I'm not a real wiki guru, so I'm not always sure when to use {{ }} as opposed to [[ ]]. This was an honest mistake. SSchultz 00:29, 25 February 2008 (EST)

{{ }}	[[ ]]
Templates (and {{{ }}} for working with template parameters)	Linking to articles Categories

That's pretty much all you need to know.--IDuan 00:33, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Support

Thanks for your support SSchultz. --Jimmy 21:10, 3 March 2008 (EST)