Difference between revisions of "User talk:Learn together"

Revision as of 01:41, July 3, 2007 (view source) Learn together (Talk | contribs) (→‎turkey) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:02, July 3, 2007 (view source) Colest (Talk | contribs) (French and Indian Wars) Newer edit →
Line 246:		Line 246:
	:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)		:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
	::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)		::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== French and Indian Wars ==
		+
		+	Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles.  I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

---

Revision as of 18:02, July 3, 2007

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a {{speedy template to Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating any article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to Roman Empire! --Hojimachong^talk 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --Hojimachong^talk 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Clinton Revert....

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[1]] --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[2]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Job

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! DanH 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Saint Andrew

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)" complain about Andrew and Philip along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Highlighting Links

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it. Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or GodWarrior when you wrote this. HeartOfGold 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

My pleasure

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

Edit summaries

I appreciate this edit, and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. HeartOfGold_talk 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Compliment

Excellent work on the Rather article.Bohdan ^Talk 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming, et.al.

You might want to consider this [[3]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Request

Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on Justinian? It seems he is someone you would know much about.Bohdan ^Talk 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry!

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you

The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.Bohdan ^Talk 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.Богдан ^Talk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

What's the problem with my edit to the atheism page? --ThunderBunny 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

• I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic")
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br> (cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence)

--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Most of those weren't my edits. --ThunderBunny 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --ThunderBunny 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) Learn together 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --ThunderBunny 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. Learn together 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Answer

Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.Богдан ^Talk 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

• I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Solomon

Hi, I checked out your House of David article and followed the first link to Solomon. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --Colest 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Article for your attention please

Four Emperors Era needs work and it seems like you would know about it. Богдан ^Talk 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

nice work LT bd ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Glad you like it ;-) Learn together 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

correction made. Conservative 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Glad I could help Learn together 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry!

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. :P --BethanyS^Talk 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Intuitive page naming

Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for Antonia ... your article is actually about Antonia Minor, who also had a sister named Antonia, Antonia Major. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called Bob or Smith and expecting your choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. Learn together 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider that for the future. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. Learn together 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) Learn together 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

• Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? Bohdan 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Point taken, B :) File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

• You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way!  ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Uribe Human Rights Abuses

Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --FreedomandLiberty 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks Learn together 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

Contact....

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ralph Reed, et. al.

• You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. Learn together 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

courtesy notice

I liked your Praetorian guard article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your Praetorian guard guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. Conservative 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) Learn together 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: Marcus Aurelius. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. Conservative 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks Learn together 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. Bohdan 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) Learn together 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: Amoz. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. Bohdan 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". Learn together 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

John the Baptist

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. Crocoite ^Talk 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. Learn together 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)

In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [4]

"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[5]

I'm sorry, but Mormonism isn't Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. Learn together 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

• Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. Learn together 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

• So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. Learn together 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

• Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. Learn together 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Request

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [6] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. Bohdan 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) Learn together 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Contest

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? Here Thanks. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I would be honored my friend. ;-) Learn together 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. Learn together 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. Geo.Complain! 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) Learn together 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

turkey

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? Bohdan 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Look at it now and tell me if its better. Bohdan 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I think that's much better ;-) Learn together 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

French and Indian Wars

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --Colest 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)