Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, rollback
7,537
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 49:
Line 49: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→hi
I hope someone with block powers is paying attention. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 12 February 2015 (EST)
I hope someone with block powers is paying attention. [[User:SamHB|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:36, 8 May 2015 (EDT)
== re: Encyclopedia of Conservatism ==
Hi JoeyJ,
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. [[User:Conservative|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.
Peace,
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 02:09, 1 June 2015 (EDT)
:*Alright, I reinsert the [[:Category:Physics]] into the relativity articles. I would like to continue to clean up the Category:Physics and Category:Chemistry, but if you do not agree with me you can simply undo my edits.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 04:32, 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, [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:58, 10 June 2015 (EDT)
:Ok, I already noticed that this template was proposed to delete, but I refused to delete it.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 07:21, 11 June 2015 (EDT)
== temporary grant of upload rights ==
Joey, I've given you a temporary grant of upload rights for the images you requested here: [[User_talk:Conservative/upload_request]]. Be sure to give full attribution for images when you upload them, as provided on their sources. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:16, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
:*Thank you!--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 12:27, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
== Attribution ==
Joey, the source file shows how it should be attributed, in the link on the right side for using it on the web:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_-_11_specimen.jpg
I corrected the attribution for that one, and will start correcting the others.
Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:49, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
== re: upload ==
Could you please upload the following pictures for me? [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Naturkundemuseum_Homo_Rudolfensis_Schaedel.jpg] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LB1_skull.jpg] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_%28Daiting_Specimen%29.jpg] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_%28Chicken_Wing%29.jpg] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeopteryx_lithographica_-_11_specimen.jpg]--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 12:03, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
::Joey, you can upload these now. Please give full attribution as specified in the originals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:21, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
== Thanks for deleteing ==
That's for deleting all those pages--it seems that they often get missed, and forgotten about. A bit of housecleaning now and then is a good idea! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 18:53, 5 November 2016 (EDT)
:You are welcome.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 18:54, 5 November 2016 (EDT)
== Merry Christmas ==
[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.
Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (EST)
:Thank you! I hope you and all the other contributors at Conservapedia had also a great Christmas and will have a happy New Year!--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 15:49, 27 December 2016 (EST)
== IRC ==
Hello,<br />
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!<br />
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net<br />
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:42, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
== Svoboda ==
why did you said in this article that my additions were fake News/information. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 10:03, 21 July 2017 (EDT)
:Because you did not add a source for your claims. When did Tyahnybok gave the Nazi salute? If you are talking about [http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-are-no-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-and-the-obama-administration-does-not-support-fascists/5370269 this photo], you should remind that the Nazi salute is given with the right hand. And it could be misleading to call Stepan Bandera a nazi collaborator, because he did not cooperate with the Germans for a long time. In fact, he was interned in a concentration camp for three years. Sorry for the late response.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:03, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
== Re: You're Cool ==
I did not start the edit war, SamHB did by insistently editing the Pussy Riot article to force his liberal viewpoint on it (which differs from what is actually the case on the article - that liberals and leftists, who generally support anti-Christian bigotry, supported the actions of Pussy Riot) in violation of CP guidelines (his preferred version attempts to whitewash the article to deny that liberal/leftist bigotry and anti-Christian hate, under the ruse of "freedom of speech", motivated both the band's actions and liberal SJW/elitist support of those actions, which basically ''is'' imposing a liberal viewpoint on it). You also should ''not'' have unblocked him because doing so only serves to give him a free pass to continue acting as he has on this site and to enforce to him that he can do as he pleases here without answering for it. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 14:16, 26 February 2018 (EST)
:Alright, but I still do not comprehend your block of SamHB. You could have explained your opinion on this essay on his talk page, instead of simply reverting his edits. Therefore, you were not less involved in this edit war than SamHB. In my personal opinion the actions of Pussy Riot fall under freedom of speech (which is a Conservative value that differs the USA from such Pseudo-Conservative and Soviet-nostalgic states like Russia).--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 11:59, 27 February 2018 (EST)
::Well, there is one thing about that, though - liberals have a tendency to "support" freedom of speech only when it's convenient to them. But as we've been seeing in media outlets that are not part of the liberal media, liberals are all too quick to deny freedom of speech to conservatives and frequently (and illegally) use weaponized political offices and courts to do so. By their words and actions, Pussy Riot are by no means "conservative" either, and regardless of whether their actions are covered by freedom of speech or not, they were still intended to offend a religious majority (specifically through blasphemy) and it still doesn't make it right. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 14:18, 27 February 2018 (EST)
==Copyright protection for intellectual property of the Islamic State==
So you are defending the intellectual copyright protections for intellectual property produced by the Islamic State. Now I understand where you're coming from. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:36, 9 June 2018 (EDT)
:I defend the intellectual property of the Reuters news agency.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 07:18, 10 June 2018 (EDT)
::Reuters was invited in by the Islamic State to film a mass beheading? Didn't know that. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:20, 10 June 2018 (EDT)
::Are the families of victims of beheadings aware ''Reuters'' are commercially exploiting photographs of their loved ones murders, and demand payment? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:26, 10 June 2018 (EDT)
::Reuters had a reason to put a copyright watermark on this photograph. You claimed that the photo can be used by the CC 4.0 licence which is definitely wrong. There had been a lot of copyright complaints on several images on many websites, so please do not upload images with a copyright watermark without permission.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 15:18, 10 June 2018 (EDT)
:::Let me understand what you are saying: Reuters exerted copyrights over intellectual property produced by the Islamic State. Is that correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:05, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
::::Reuters apparently got access to the footage early enough. Could you please tell me why it put a copyright watermark on the photograph?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 17:12, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
:::::I dunno, unless Reuters had an embedded cameraman with the Islamic State. I'd like to know under what theory of law (1) Reuters can claim ownership of property produced by the Islamic State, and (2) Why Reuters should be financially compensated for photos of murders thst Reuters didn't produce. (3) Can Reuters show proof they compensated the Islamic State to transfer exclusive ownership to them? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:23, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
::::::Ok, I have asked Andy to restore the image. But please put a applicable licence in the file description. Sorry.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 06:10, 13 June 2018 (EDT)
== I moved the National Front article ==
I moved the National Front article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:05, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
:Thank you very much!--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 16:57, 12 June 2018 (EDT)
=hi=
if u need a hand with anything feel free to ask. [[User:Massaq25|Massaq25]] ([[User talk:Massaq25|talk]]) 18:04, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
:Alright. Feel welcome here :) Thanks for creating the [[Podesta Group]] article but please try to avoid "stubs" and do not forget to add references to your articles.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 18:18, 29 September 2018 (EDT)