Block, SkipCaptcha, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
5,655
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 273:
Line 273: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Archiving
Sharon, Thank you. I plan on adding more and fleshing out the article over the next week or so. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Sharon, Thank you. I plan on adding more and fleshing out the article over the next week or so. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:40, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
==French Revolution==
I have made large alterations to the [[French Revolution]], any thoughts? [[stevendavy]]
:Wow! Your improvements to the article are amazing. I think it is a great candidate for the featured article section. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 10:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
==Formatting==
Excuse me, but could you fix the formatting error on this article [[American Values Club]]?? I am not sure how to.
thank you and God bless-
[[User:Truthseeker101|Truthseeker101]] 22:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
== Geometry terms ==
Hi there, I just noticed you have been playing with the geometry term list things, but I'm not sure where you are going with it.
Can I suggest that (like the other "term lists") they simply be removed? Categories are a much better way to group subjects on a wiki, since they are automatic. I did something like that to, I think, a musical instrument list that started from the "index" page. Example: say someone writes a nice article on a new geometry term. They would have to know, somehow, to add it to the term list. But any editor is likely to add <nowiki>[[category:geometry]]</nowiki>, which automatically adds it to the nicely alphabetized category page, and creates a link to that page as well.
The term lists may have served a function in the early days of the site, but are a redundant workaround when categories are available.
Just a thought. Oh, and PS, hope you're having a lovely Sunday! [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the categories are a great idea. I keep forgetting to put them on the pages I edit! I think the indexes are necessary for some of the very broad subjects (such as the history terms). These indexes are geared towards students and are intended to help them in their studies by outlining the most important facts they need to know. Having all the terms in one category is pretty overwhelming, and the alphabetical indexes help to divide the terms into smaller chunks. Also, the Indexes are much more accessible for students who don't know much about Wikis and how to use the categories, since they are right on the side bar. I personally prefer the categories, but think we should keep the indexes for the time being. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup> 21:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry. I will do that next time. Is there anything else I should know?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Thank you. I will try my best.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
==Forged Signature==
I was moving another user's comments from my user page to my talk page. That's all. [[User:Pendayho|Pendejo]] 20:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
== notice ==
Please direct new Sysops here: [[New Sysops Training Page]]
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
== Vandalism? ==
(Gulik2, here.) Just because you didn't LIKE the facts I posted, that doesn't make them 'vandalism'. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 17:42, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
Three days or banned again, eh? Hey, no pressure getting in the way of doing actual RESEARCH or anything there... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sharon, the above idiot was blocked, for doing what he did best, which was not research (like he claimed we didn't), not edit well (wrote like Dick and Jane), and just plain stupid all over. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
== Nice new entry! ==
Sharon, terrific new entry on [[perfectly contestable markets]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks! We have only 46 entries left to write before we reach 10,000! ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 10:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks for fixing that spelling so quickly on [[complementary inputs]]!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:47, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::You're welcome. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 10:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
==...as jazz is to 4/4 time... ([[Abstract Expressionism]])==
I don't think that's right. 4/4 time is very common in jazz. Think of ''Basin Street Blues'' or ''St. James Infirmary.'' [http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t19.htm This page] says "Common time is 4 - 4 is the traditional time signature for ballads, rock, jazz, Latin American, Spanish paso doble and many other idioms," and [http://www.pbs.org/theblues/classroom/essays12bar.html virtually all blues] is in 4/4 time. I think even boogie-woogie (as in Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie") is usually notated as 4/4 time, although maybe it should be 8/8.
In fact Dave Brubeck's famous 1959 album ''Time Out'' and his signature piece ''Take Five'' were so attention-getting precisely because they explored rhythms other than 4/4.
Unless I'm missing your point... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:You're right. I guess it should say something more like "as jazz is to Mozart". The point is that Abstract Expressionism went drastically away from the traditions for art. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 18:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Please check your email.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
==Witchcraft==
<<Stop filling articles with liberal bias, as you did in Witchcraft. ~ SharonTalk 10:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)>
Are you interested in the truth or do you honestly look at the world through rose colored glasses tinted to view only what you want to see?
I typed the truth, not a bit of bias was in what I said. Nor am I a witch. I am a Druid, which you had no problem allowing Druidry to be placed under Wicca as a subsection if Wicca. Druidry is NOT a form of Wicca and never has been. Wicca is less than a hundred years old with Druidry dating back to the Hibernia and the ancient British Isles. My family had to hide for hundreds of years because of the bigotry and bias coming from Christian zealots that claimed anything that was not Christian was evil.
If you are so sure Witchcraft and its followers are evil, then why even allow anything to be written on this list. It would seem you are the self appointed list monitor and guardian of the truth. Well the truth is regardless of what you believe is that a witch is not a devil worshipper or evil. It would appear to me the bias is on your part and your denial of letting anyone else say anything that is contrary to your beliefs.
Cha tèid nì sam bith san dòrn dùinte.
Lady Caillech Beara
Druid Council of Elders
An Clare
County An Clare
Ireland
:Interestingly, I don't believe there '''is''' a "Druid Council of Elders" in Co. Clare. Unless you have perhaps just created it. Perhaps you would enlighten me :) [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:48, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually I didn't say the Druid Council of Elders was in An Clare, but merely that I am from An Clare and now live in the United States. I am actually part of the House of Keltria.
The Henge of Keltria has a complex structure. The day-to-day running of the Henge is done by a Board of Trustees, which at this time should be composed of three or more members from the membership of the Henge of Keltria elected for three years terms, and four officers: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. All but the treasurer are elected by the membership at the annual meeting.
Theological direction is provided by a Council of Elders. This council is composed of no more than nine members elected from and by the active members of the Ring of Oak. The Council of Elders can override the Board of Directors and officers in all matters pertaining to the spiritual and philosophical goals of the organization. The spokesperson of the Council of Elders is the Arch-druid, who is elected from the Council of Elders.
Groves may be created by three active members. Groves must apply to the Board of Trustees for a charter and be approved by the Council of Elders to become a Keltrian grove. A newly formed Grove is designated a “seed-grove” until the Council of Elders chooses to remove that designation after review of grove activities. Groves must meet at least once a month.
If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Birch (or higher), then the grove may be designated as a “Birch Grove.” If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Yew and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Birch or higher, a grove may be designated as a “Yew Grove.” If a grove leader is a member of the Ring of Oak and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Yew or higher, a grove may be designated as an “Oak Grove.”
Keltrian Study Groups are informal groups of people who gather to study Keltrian Druidism and regularly practice Keltrian ritual that may be formed by any member.
Hope this explains it better.
Cailli
::Conservapedia is biased towards Conservative values and Christianity. The original witchcraft article reflected the Christian view of Witchcraft. Your edits added some good information, but they removed the Christian bias, and reflected a "tolerant" liberal view. I'm going to ask the Conservapedia Student Panel ([[User:CPanel]]) what they think about this issue. Thanks, ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 11:49, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
==Geology Terms==
I created '''Category:Geology Indexes''' for a list of Geology terms. I would like this index to be similar to your one for the History terms, but I'm not sure how to continue. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</sup> 19:14, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I figured out how to do this myself. [[Template:Geology Index]]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</sup> 11:32, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::Great! I really enjoyed reading some of your pages on geology. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 15:22, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
== Number of articles ==
Hi Sharon: This is my first visit to Conservapedia. I was looking around at the site, and I noticed that the number of articles that you refer to on the main page doesn't match up with the current statistics on [[Special:Statistics]]. There's actually an easier way to keep the number of article pages updated on your main page, without having to update it by hand. You can add this template: <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki>, which does it automatically. According to the site statistics, there's currently {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages on Conservapedia.
I don't mean any criticism; I just wanted to point out that there's an easier way. Unfortunately, that would mean possibly reserving the 10,000 articles celebration until the wiki's actually hit that milestone. Anyway, that's all -- talk to you later! [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
: Wiki's statistics are too imprecise for us, and favor long articles over short ones. We use precise calculations here without the Wiki bias. But thanks for your suggestion, and Godspeed to you, Dannyhorn!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh, okay. I'm curious -- how do you make those calculations? As far as I know, the wiki statistics are just based on the number of articles with at least one internal link, not counting redirects. Are you guys counting redirects too? [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks Shar! That will be helpful when I'm writing articles on famous people and need a picture! ''':P''' ~ [[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]] 11:39, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Sharon. Thanks for the nice comments on the Main page and my talk page. Your support is appreciated. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]]</sup> 00:14, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 06:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
== Why South Africa Sucks ==
Thank you [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:37, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 20:42, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
== Article creation drive ==
I created something new on the main page: [[Conservapedia:Articles That Need To Created]]
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:16, 2 June 2007 (EDT)conservative
:That's excellent! I'll try to fill in some of them as I have time. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 16:32, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
==Molecular Biology==
I noticed many articles popping up dealing with Molecular Biology, Molecular Genetics and Genetics. I saw that many of them are pretty short and are not specific enough to show the finer differences between certain topics. By chance are you using a text book for the article creation or recounting information you may have learned in a Biology class? I was waiting for a consensus on what age group we are supposedly writing for. Ed redirected my Gene Expression article because it was difficult for him to understand. It was written at an AP biology level taught in the US. I wanted clarification before editing any more articles and having several hours of work tossed because someone who has not been in a biology class in the past 5 years could not understand the terminology. If you are interested in having someone flesh out the articles let me know.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:I just looked at your version of the article on Gene expression. I think it is completely in line with the age level guideline (stated [[Conservapedia:Article level|here]]). The topic of Gene expression is quite advanced, and so the article should explain the topic as simply as possible, and then expound upon it in the body of the article. The first paragraph was easy for me to understand, and I think it should be understandable to any high school student who has taken biology. Please feel free to restore your version of the article. Any improvements you wish to make to other articles are welcome. Thanks, ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 11:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
==Template==
Thanks a lot for telling me how to make a template...it wasn't at all confusing! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 21:26, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:You're welcome. BTW, the Senate terms you are working on are excellent. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 21:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
== attilla the hun article ==
I saw your [[Attila the Hun]] material. You added a lot of material to the article which was excellent. However, if we are to effectively compete with Wikipedia which has a fairly big headstart we are going to have to footnote our material. And it is a Conservapedia rule that you must source your material. I know you do a lot for Conservapedia and so I hope you take this suggestion as the friendly note it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:46, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for the tip. I will try to be more diligent about my footnotes in the future. Thanks, ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 07:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
==Well==
He sure was nice.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
:Certainly one of the nastier ones I've seen. ~ <font color="Turquoise">[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup></font> 23:14, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
::A vandal, I assume? --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 15:47, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Obviously so. Anyone names to be named? --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 15:56, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
== Quick work! ==
That two edit user was actually an automated "Bot", Sharon. You made quick work of it! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 16:34, 16 June 2007 (EDT)