SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + Line 52:
Line 53: + + + + + + + + + + Line 115:
Line 126: + + Line 134:
Line 147: + + + + + +
several things, in 4 places; please check diff. Server hung 3 times while I was editing this.
I suppose that makes sense. I can be discouraging! I was hoping to provide a good amount of info, like WP, but not bore the reader to death with how this guys best friend's brother had a girlfriend who's mother stubbed her toe. I'll see what I can do, anyway. [[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 9:30, 31 December 2015 (EST)
I suppose that makes sense. I can be discouraging! I was hoping to provide a good amount of info, like WP, but not bore the reader to death with how this guys best friend's brother had a girlfriend who's mother stubbed her toe. I'll see what I can do, anyway. [[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 9:30, 31 December 2015 (EST)
:That "best friend's brother ..." stuff strikes me more as what one would see on low-class news sites and commentary sites than on WP. But, yeah. Avoid it like the plague. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)
==Citations==
==Citations==
You are probably right, but I don't want to give the opposition reason to attack. One complaint about this site has been "Articles are either uncited or come from unscientific sources such as right-wing opinion articles and creation science websites, rather than anything even remotely peer reviewed" (https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservapedia.com#page-1). Having peer-reviewed articles is probably not very likely, since most of them are littlem ore that liberals sharing mindless liberal drivel. Some are actually good enough that if we really worked, we could use them, but this would take so much time, I don't think many people try. At the very least, however, I'd like to see plenty of citations from reasonably reputable sources. [[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 9:40, 31 December 2015 (EST)
You are probably right, but I don't want to give the opposition reason to attack. One complaint about this site has been "Articles are either uncited or come from unscientific sources such as right-wing opinion articles and creation science websites, rather than anything even remotely peer reviewed" (https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservapedia.com#page-1). Having peer-reviewed articles is probably not very likely, since most of them are littlem ore that liberals sharing mindless liberal drivel. Some are actually good enough that if we really worked, we could use them, but this would take so much time, I don't think many people try. At the very least, however, I'd like to see plenty of citations from reasonably reputable sources. [[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 9:40, 31 December 2015 (EST)
:{{cquote|God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.|||Reinhold Niebuhr}}
:Always keep that in mind. Now your division of topics, into those that you can't change and those that you can, may be different from mine.
:I generally stick to what might be called "hard science" and "basic knowledge". (My various [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Idioms idioms] articles are examples of the latter.) For those you often don't need citations. For example, there are no citations in my [[tar baby]] article, with all the talk about the "Uncle Remus" stories. It was all written just from memory. Science topics sometimes get into controversy (relativity, thermodynamics), but I find that it's better to give a clear explanation of something than have to rely on a citation. When challenged, of course I find a citation, always an easy task.
:For controversial topics, I just stay away, and accept that those articles are going to find their way into things like the www.mywot.com page noted above. There's nothing you or I can do about them. I just shake my head in bafflement that people are so fascinated with bestiality, or with how 2015 (I guess it's up to 2016 now; it's been going on since 2009 or so) is going to be the worst year for fill-in-the-blank. And I shake my head in bafflement that people think that kind of writing is going to win people over to Christianity, or enhance Conservapedia's reputation.
:I occasionally stick my neck out and comment on topics that lie on the boundary between hard science and controversy, like cosmology or thermodynamics. But I'm extremely careful here. In any case, I rarely use references. If you find yourself wanting to put in references, I'd suggest that you stay away from creationist or fundamentalist religious websites in support of scientific positions. Good luck. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)
== Interest to user ==
== Interest to user ==
Concerning your last question, I am not sure. I just requested them as they were the most convenient to find. You might be able to ask an administrator if you wish to know. You're welcome! [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (EST)
Concerning your last question, I am not sure. I just requested them as they were the most convenient to find. You might be able to ask an administrator if you wish to know. You're welcome! [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (EST)
:I was going to answer some of your questions here, but I didn't have time, and it seems that U.U got you all caught up. The thing I would add is, in answer to your last question, wikimedia things are good, because it's a stable site and has a huge amount of good things. All wikimedia projects are set up so that they can just include any image directly in any article. Conservapedia requires that all images be on the local server—no off-site links, so you have to request an upload, as explained above. If it's a wikimedia image, or something similarly on an existing we site, it's straightforward. If it's something of yours, you have to get it uploaded somewhere. I don't have a web site, so I have, on occasion, mailed image files to sysops, like the ones in [[Debate:What_is_the_exponent_of_r_in_Newtonian_gravity%3F]]. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)
==Vandal==
==Vandal==
:As for copying from WP, I know what you mean. In theory, it can be a framework on which changes may be made. However, since it is someone else's framework, that should be avoided. Just write what you can, with expansion in mind. I'm not the best or brightest, and there are surely better ways, but I just try to include a little basic info, and categorize it so that others can add easily, as they see fit. As long as the original work is yours, this is a good plan. I sparked a bit of a discussion between [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] on this topic. There are different viewpoints, but mine is becoming the rather obvious, "Better to find an article than not, but better to find a full article that a stub." If I can make a full article, I try, but if I don't have enough knowledge, I at least create a stub to others can find something and improve upon that. Just remember--even stubs need to have citations.
:As for copying from WP, I know what you mean. In theory, it can be a framework on which changes may be made. However, since it is someone else's framework, that should be avoided. Just write what you can, with expansion in mind. I'm not the best or brightest, and there are surely better ways, but I just try to include a little basic info, and categorize it so that others can add easily, as they see fit. As long as the original work is yours, this is a good plan. I sparked a bit of a discussion between [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] on this topic. There are different viewpoints, but mine is becoming the rather obvious, "Better to find an article than not, but better to find a full article that a stub." If I can make a full article, I try, but if I don't have enough knowledge, I at least create a stub to others can find something and improve upon that. Just remember--even stubs need to have citations.
[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:26, 5 January 2016 (EST)
[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:26, 5 January 2016 (EST)
::As far as vandalism, just report it to any sysop who seems to be online, if you can. If not, don't worry about it. If you see a huge vandalism spree, it may look scary, but don't worry about it. Admins will find it, block the person, and revert everything very efficiently with the special tools that they have. You can revert things yourself if you want, but don't beat your head against the wall doing a lot of reverting; admins can do it much better. Remember: nothing will be lost on a wiki (unless of course someone vapes it, but only admins can do that.) It's all in the page history.
::It's always exhilarating for a new user to see that a page that he has written has been vandalized, but the novelty wears off after a while. Vandals typically look a Recent Changes and hence vandalize recently edited pages.
::About copying stuff: We're nowhere near as fussy as some people in the academic world are. Do not copy-and-paste blocks of text from other sites (unless you are quoting them and identify that that's what you are doing.) But other than that, just say it in your own words, and you'll be fine. Antimony is used in flame-proofing, paints, batteries .... Just write. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)