Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jimmy"

Revision as of 04:23, March 4, 2008

Take a better look to the the article Gettysburg Address. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment was NOT clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

You started writing:

The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain the phrase attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.

And the phrase was: "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

That phrase was in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: "under God".

I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [1]--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared Gettysburg Address and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Your editing

Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. Karajou 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.

- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder

- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.

- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification

- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.

- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Your block

You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --Crocoite 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

No problem, Jimmy

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. SSchultz 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)