Difference between revisions of "User talk:Dpbsmith"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Creation Museum)
Line 132: Line 132:
== DpbZensmith ==
== DpbZensmith ==
Your patience continues to astound me. *doffs cap* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Your patience continues to astound me. *doffs cap* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 16:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
== Creation Museum ==
Could you hold off editing [[Creation Museum]] for a moment; I'm getting repeated edit conflicts with you.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 04:57, 30 May 2007

Older material:

I need your help. Can you come to Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements? --Ed Poor 10:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)


Exactly the edit I was making. [1] Thanks for helping to tidy up. --Ed Poor 21:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Church of Jesus_Christ of Latter-day Saints

Thanks for adding the categories back.[[2]] I agree, those categories are not redundant. Crocoite Talk 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Tea and Sympathy?

I've noticed that you are very good at making clear points without offending anyone, so I am requesting that you at least check out Square root and Scientific Revolution, especially the latter, and tell me what you think [my course of action should be] sometime, on their talk pages or mine. Thanks in advance, Human 15:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the help and participation. I think SqR is close to being a good file now. It's so much better to have more voices involved, I think. Sci Rev, however... man. I should just stay away from these moated files. Rschlafly (Roger?) told me that the creationist textbook I quoted (fairly, too) was biased and full of myths. Well, I knew that, but not in the way Rschlaughly thinks! I suspect the only solution would be a good, real article written in a sandbox, followed by a revert war and subsequent banning of yours truly.
Anyway. I found a new mess ;) But it's not war bait. Musical Instruments should redirect to the singular (IMO), not vice versa. And Musical Instruments Master List is redundant and proving it. One links to flute, the other to flutes. The two articles are both floating out there semi-independently, with "trees" being built off them with no rhyme or reason (or melody either!). It's going to be work combining them and any split files linked from them, but I think it would be worth it.
By the way, I seem to have my own set of internal "wiki rules", like article titles always being singular and such. Of course, this site has no standards or manual of style other than what immigrants from WP bring with them (I think I have personally bolded 200 article title first uses!). So, thanks again, and if you want to hep with that music thing (I saw you had worked on both files) that would be great! Human 21:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Paradigms and Sympathy

Can you take a glance at Paradigm shift? I gotta go to work, can't finish it. --Ed Poor 07:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the clarification of the Scientology article. It's been giving me problems.--JoyousOne 18:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And thanks again...--JoyousOne 19:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


I don't understand what you mean about the quote. Babbit


I have re-done the article under the correct heading. Thanks for your help. I don't know how to delete the original article though - can you help? Thanks.--Britinme 14:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure what the point was, then, of going through the business of what is legitimate to copy and under what rules... I could certainly rewrite it, but it would essentially be a rephrasing of what's there, though probably somewhat more concise. That, in the end, seems to be a dodgy way round the copyright rules, since AFSC is the best source on their own work. It seems a worthy subject, suitably encyclopedic, and links to the Religious Society of Friends article to expand it. Let me know when you've considered what I've said here, and if necessary I will rewrite.--Britinme 14:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC, then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. Dpbsmith 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Well I have rewritten the article and have it saved as a document to use if necessary. I rewrote the first and last sections to add a better historical context, and left the middle sections - the mission statement and values sections - as they were, with the statement about copying. If you want me to post that, I can. I'll leave it until tomorrow to give people a chance to decide what to do about it. However, the point about rewriting is that there is no other real source for information that isn't taken from AFSC. I have rewritten it in a way that does not directly copy but uses the information, and I think that would be acceptable to the AFSC if it's acceptable to Conservapedia.--Britinme 15:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
This discussion is probably better continued at Conservapedia:AFD American Friends Service Commission; I've copied your comments there. (I'm sure there are other sources for information about AFSC than their site, by the way...)Dpbsmith 15:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I dont Understand

Why did you right that huge article on the Univeristy of Wiscosin Madison on my talk page? i am not mad, i read it but what was the point you were goin for? --Will N. 08:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

yes cheers!! --Will N. 09:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, fella

Surprised it lasted a whole hour. Is "Fair and Balanced" copyrighted by Fox? It'd make a great motto for this place - how's your Latin? ;) --Robledo 18:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

image comment

your Earlycolleges2.jpg‎ would be better off as a gif - it would be tiny, and have no jpg artifacts. If you want I'll re-create it and upload it. Oh, if I go to do that I'd better have the dates to work with so I don't screw it up. Or of course, you can do it. Thanks! (PS, I like the slowly growing Ivy League tree) Human 20:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice work on the college timeline! Awesome! I'd like to put that on the front page sometime if is legible in a thumb-size version.--Aschlafly 01:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the kudos - it's super-high praise coming from you - I've always been impressed with your contributions and the way you conduct yourself here.--Hsmom 09:49, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Racist edit summary

Mr./Mrs/Miss Smith I object to your offensive and racist comment concerning your edit of Stevens Institute of Technology. I know there are differences between US and UK usage and it is generally accepted that appropriate spelling be applied depending on the subject matter. While US spelling was appropriate to the article, your edit summary was offensive to many British people. Let us not forget that the UK has been one of the greatest supporters of America in recent years. Ian St John 18:48, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(In most years, except for some unpleasantness in the late 1700s and early 1800s). Dpbsmith 19:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Apologies for any offense. It was tongue-in-cheek. I have a streak of Anglophilia and not infrequently use British spellings by accident. Dpbsmith 18:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Racist????? Dpbsmith 18:50, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
"vile Limey" !Ian St John 18:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
The British consider themselves to constitute a race? I didn't know that... Dpbsmith 18:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Encyclopedias are meant to be educational.Ian St John 18:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Limeophobe... :P --Robledo 18:52, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you call a German a K**** or a Japanese person a J**? Of course not. But for some reason (British TV?) Americans think it's ok to call the British whatever they want. Maybe "racism" is the wrong word, it's more of an ethnic or national slur. I realize many of the people whose "groups" have not been persecuted for a while in the US tend to join in the fun of calling themselves names, and you meant no harm or insult - but, we live and learn, eh? To quote Stan: "I get it. I don't get it." Speaking as white straight male, that goes triple for me... Human 19:30, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Noted. Dpbsmith 19:36, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

List of composers

I've got a little Liszt / He never will be missed.

-) --Ed Poor 21:55, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
The music-hall singer attends a series
Of masses and fugues and ‘ops’
By Bach, interwoven
With Spohr and Beethoven,
At classical Monday Pops.

Dpbsmith 21:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)


Would you be interested in becoming a sysop if you were not expected to spend your time chasing vandals? I think that you could make good use of preveledges like page move, and editing protected pages. Thanks. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 14:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm just not sure. It bothers me to keep turning it down; it seems ungracious. At the same time, I'm not sure what I'd do with sysop privileges. There's really no shortcut to dealing with people patiently, convincing them if you can, and shrugging and letting it go if you can't.
Turning it down feels a little as if I'm pretending to be better than I really am. It doesn't mean I wouldn't like to swat people with a clue-by-four, and it doesn't mean I can always—or even often—get the patient-convincing-thing to work. I like to think I'm getting better with practice, though.
With regard to protected pages: yeah, it's very frustrating, but if I can't convince stubborn sysop XYZ of certain things (and I can't!) then effectively I can't change the page anyway. That is, with sysop status I'd have the power to get into an edit war with sysop XYZ, but I wouldn't have the power to change the page and have it stay changed unless I can convince XYZ. And if I can convince XYZ, well, then I can "change the page" without sysop status, by convincing XYZ to change it.
Probably best to leave things as they are. If the group wants to call me an "honorary sysop" I'd like that. Dpbsmith 15:31, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Also, some sysops have an I'm a sysop you are not so your opinion doesn't matter, and if you were a sysop you wouldn't have to worry about that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 16:05, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
I think most of what you just said is exactly why people here would like you to have access to those powers and privileges. It doesn't mean you have to change any of what you do, but I think there is a pretty good consensus, for instance, that you could be implicitly trusted with the 'page move' feature, which is very useful to a diligent and conscientious editor such as yourself. Likewise, the 'revert' button is a great tool in the hands of a trusted and active editor. Human 15:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving Averages?

Are you going to include moving averages as well? --SeanTheSheep 11:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Fairness Doctrine

I know that the Fairness doctrine still isn't in effect. I just forgot to put that in the article. This is why wikis are so great. Other people can augment the articles to make them better. Thanks for your help on the article. --AdrianP 18:35, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Your reversion of my edit

Hello, I do disagree that accuracy trumps preferred euphemisms. Specifically, I am referring to your revert here. Could you point me to a policy that says "Courtesy calls for using the names factions prefer to use themselves." Thanks. HeartOfGold 23:04, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

In this case, accuracy would call for "pro-choice", as many who take the "let's keep abortion legal" position are themselves pro-life, would never consider an abortion for themselves or suggest someone else have one, and may even feel that it is immoral, but nonetheless feel that the decision should be made by the individual woman rather than the government. Thus these people are most accurately called pro-choice.--Hsmom 17:47, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Hsmom, I don't mind your two cents, and oddly enough, half an hour ago I heard Rudy Giuliani on the radio expressing precisely this position.
Nevertheless, I don't agree with you. Both of the phrases are dishonest. Both try to obfuscate the issue by not saying what the issue is about—abortion—and by replacing it with a vague, nice word that nobody could be against. Who could be anti-life? Who could be anti-choice?
It's hard to condense a complex position into a short phrase, but it really seems obvious to me that if one wanted to pick short, simple names for the factions, those names would be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." Now, before you jump all over me of course "pro-abortion" here "favoring legal abortion," not "encouraging abortion." Very few people would sincerely misunderstand this (although some might pretend to, to score debating points). And, yes, "pro-abortion" does not capture the very important question of whose choice it is. Dpbsmith 19:14, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I hear ya on obfuscate thing. Can't stand it when politicians refer to "a woman's right to choose". Just say it already! I think "pro-legal-abortion" and "anti-legal-abortion", while a teensy bit longer, might be the most accurate. (But I do think quite a lot of people *do* sincerely misunderstand the "pro-legal-abortion + abortion-is-a-bad-thing" position. I think Clinton used "safe, legal, and rare" to express the same idea.) Glad you're here, Dpbsmith. Enjoy talkin' to ya.


Your patience continues to astound me. *doffs cap* --Robledo 16:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Creation Museum

Could you hold off editing Creation Museum for a moment; I'm getting repeated edit conflicts with you. Philip J. Rayment 05:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)