User talk:TimS/Archive3

Natural Selection

If you could explain what work needs doing on the natural selection article, I will be more than happy to make the changes. --TomT 15:14, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends

ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:

ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:

• Abortion alternatives
• Abortion procedures
• Culture of life
• Dilatation and curettage abortion
• Dilatation and Evacuation abortion
• National Right to Life Committee
• Prostaglandin Abortion
• Partial birth abortion
• Right to life
• Right to life books
• Right to life movement
• Saline abortion
• Suction abortion
• Sanctity of life
• Silent scream

Conservative 19:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I asked Ed Poor, but... Uniting Church in Australia

At the risk of repeating myself....

Over on Ed Poor's talk page I asked about how "The non-page formerly known as Uniting Church in Australia" saying that "I know that I created Uniting Church in Australia about 2-3 weeks ago. Now, I go back to do some more on it, and it's gone, presumably deleted..." User:TK told me you had deleted it at 12:16, 22 March 2007 as being "copy from WP".

No, it was NOT a copy. Yes, I borrowed heavily from the Wikipedia entry; but, I was a significant author (not 'establish'-er) of the content over there so it is 'mine' and I could borrow from it and 'spin' it a little for this context and be true to both. I will go back in and re-create the page; but, that could also be removed if people such as you do not check for differences and think I am only 'copying' again. It has taught me to set the "Watch this page" for all situations.

What must I do to be seen as "doing the right thing" (other than "doing the right thing")?

Advice, please. Peter Ellis 01:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

In case I need to know for necxt time, where is the policy or etiquette for deleting a new article without contacting the originator? Peter Ellis 02:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

AmesG

AmesG has apologized multiple times on the IRC channel, and does not deserve to be blocked. What happened to forgiveness? I cannot see a valid reason for blocking him after his apologies. Do you have one? ColinR^talk 16:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He's apologized for his obscenities, for anyone else he's insulted, and for not trying to work with other editors enough. He really deserves to be unblocked. ColinR^talk 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll be sure to let him know about the probation. I'm glad we could work this out! Thanks again. ColinR^talk 17:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

That is so odd. When I have been in IRC, and the pastes I have gotten from others there, all he does is spew hate and invective on Andy, this site, and anyone he disagrees with. What he says on IRC, however, does not "undo" what he has continually done here, IMO. CPAdmin1 can and should do what he thinks is best. But his very next transgression, disrespect or intemperate remark, in thought or deed, he is gone. For good. And Andy will not undo my block of him, that I know for certain. --~ TK ^MyTalk 17:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks CPAdmin1. Your probation is noted, and I will not use obscenities, thinly veiled or otherwise, and will try to curtail my murderous rages. TK, I have decided not to insult people on Conservapedia, to try to build a sense of civility. So what I will say is "hello." -AmesG_yo! 22:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

• That is enough for me. Sorry, really I am, CPAdmin....but his chances have run out, time is up. --~ TK ^MyTalk 23:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin1, I have noticed other thinly veiled obscenities used by Scorpion here. Would you take a look?-AmesG_yo! 12:06, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion's already been blocked for three days, presumably for precisely that. Tsumetai 12:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Admin

I know that already. --Will N. 12:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Donut

AGRH! How could you switch sides! Benedict Arnold!!! Fine, we don't need your liberal donut bias on our side anyway! :-p ColinR^talk 16:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I thought you had a pro-hole stance. My bad. Liberal donut lover. :-P ColinR^talk 16:07, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Recent change on T-Rex page

CPAdmin why the revert on the T-Rex page? That research was just published and has been looked forward by the scientific community since the announcement in December. --TimS 16:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I was wondering the same thing ... I went out of my way to find a couple links supporting that just to ensure it couldn't be reverted. Jrssr5 16:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Honored you chose my template

Thanks! Flippin 17:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Removing Blocks Without Consult....

I have asked before, nicely. Please stop. Andy concurs. Check if you must. --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 23:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.

Already done --CPAdmin1 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the edit warring part can be tricky. I don't offer a solution at this time though

I think the edit warring part can be tricky. I don't offer a solution at this time though. Conservative 00:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Blocking Policy

Your proposed blocking policy is superb. I vote to enact it ASAP. ~ SharonS ^Talk! 07:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't have anything against your policy. I have just decided it limits the power of the SYSOPs too much, and will allow liberals to take over our articles. ~ SharonS ^Talk! 20:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

And limiting the power of sysops is bad? --Hacker^{(Write some code)} 16:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Userbox

How exactly do you add a Userbox to a user page? What are the options for the boxes? Is there a page with instructions? Cheers--TomT 18:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the help! --TomT 09:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

You are Welcome. --CPAdmin1 09:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Requiring another sysop to execute blocks in a sysop/non-sysop edit war

I, for one, cannot retain anything approaching objectivity when I'm in an edit war with someone else.

Requiring another sysop to execute the block won't normally hold up anything for very long, as there are usually other sysops around and in any reasonably clear case they'll just take a glance and execute the block. If you're sure you're right, you should be confident that almost any other sysop will support you. As you say, they're given authority for a reason, and that reason is that they are trusted to be in tune with site policy.

I can't believe there are very many pages where it's so important to make an edit that it can't wait for half an hour. While you're waiting for another sysop you can always try to see whether you can just convince the other user to stop; if that succeeds, it's more effective than a block. "Conversion, not coercion," don't you know.

And finally it tends to help convince the world that sysops are acting in accord with policy, not just throwing their personal weight around. Dpbsmith 20:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Obviously if the edit warrior is inserting insults, obscenities, etc. they should be blocked, but that's covered elsewhere in the policy. Dpbsmith 20:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I will make the change. Would you care to write a full explanation for me and post it on the talk page? --CPAdmin1 20:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. OK, will do. Dpbsmith 22:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

CoulterMan should be unblocked. Please see my comments on my Talk page.--Aschlafly 21:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Clinton

0.o you got some pretty strong feelings about Clinton! --Hojimachong^talk 00:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Pledge

I have proudly posted a version of the "Pledge" on my user page, that I can acccept, one that includes the Admin guidelines Andy approved. --~ TK ^MyTalk 07:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Apology.....

For everything I have said in a intemperate manner, I humbly apologize to you.

Conflict is the result of people failing to communicate and due to that lack of communication, growing distrustful of motives and even the person's character. Man is weak, and I know if I had only prayed sincerely enough, contrite in in admitting my weakness, God would have given me the vision to see a resolution free of strife. Because of my indignation, I had a sleepless night so that I might reflect on my failings. The important thing is for all of us to work together on this project, and I believe God led each of us here, in many diverse ways, to see to its completion, and care. Anything is possible, working together and in faith to His word. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Luke 6:37 - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.

This is the Word of the God:

You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. † Leviticus 19.18

Flattery will get you nowhere, but...

All kidding aside, I appreciate your listing me as one of your "favorites." To what do I owe that honor?--TerryH^Talk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

mostly to your defense of Creation and Christianity on the various talk pages. --CPAdmin1 21:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What you've been called....

I think you missed this one [1] !--~ TK ^MyTalk 00:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Requesting a change to Theory of Evolution

Please see my request.

I think it is inappropriate for

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.

to be footnoted (footnote 3) with a page attacking Darwin. I think either of the two changes I suggest preserve the meaning, intent, and balance of the current text, i.e. the point about Darwin's possible lack of originality is still made, but in a straightforward way and upfront way. Dpbsmith 08:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

For making this change. Conservative was working against the panel, Andy, and consensus. --Hojimachong^talk 18:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Jurassic

Could you please explain why you reverted my edit? I see no difference why it matters who says what. Thanks. Jrssr5 14:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Your version states it as fact. --CPAdmin1 15:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe, but the way it's written now it could possibly be interpreted as saying YEC believe it goes Jurassic, Triassic, Cretaceous. Now, before you or someone else replies saying that's ridiculous since YEC doesn't believe the earth is that old, why can't you leave out the "claimed by evolutionary scientists" and put that after the YEC part with them believing the geological timescale is wrong? It seems redundant and reads unprofessionally to have it in both sections. Jrssr5 15:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The part about evolutionary scientists should be removed since the determination that the earth was older than believed occured 50 years before Darwin's first publication. See my post on topic's talk page.--TimS 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

---

Your reversions of my edits to the Jurassic and Paleocene articles to User:Conservative's cut-and-pasted (see all the other geological period articles), factless, propaganda stub are hardly edits calculated to improve the encyclopaedic quality of this site.

In addition to which, you accuse me of vandalism?

Just because you may not agree with the content of an article yourself, is not sufficient reason to delete the hard-worked-upon, factual and properly referenced edits of other users. Nobody is stopping you from posting your own material on the subject, should you care to do so. However, the pages to which you have reverted my edits (and those of other editors also, it would seem) themselves fall far short of the stated standards that Conservapedia requires; they are personal opinions, devoid of factual content, and unsupported by any legitimate citation.

Kindly unrevert them forthwith, and allow people to edit these articles properly in future. An apology for your high-handed and inappropriate behaviour would be welcomed, too. --Jeremiah4-22 17:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet. DanH 19:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Private

Tim, please write me here. We need to converse privately on an administrative matter.

--TerryH^Talk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

PS: Ed Poor sent me.--TerryH^Talk 23:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

something is wrong with image for CreationWiki article

something is wrong with image for CreationWiki article Conservative 23:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

It is unreadable on my computer. Conservative 23:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

Hello, why did you revert my edits without an explanation? I referenced all my changes! Java 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Because of the wikipedia like bias. --CPAdmin1 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

?

Sorry, but as I pointed out I referenced all my edits, so there is no reason to revert them. Java 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

References can be found that say just about anything. --CPAdmin1 17:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Thats the reason why I choosed Nature, Science, PNAS and GISS and not the yellow press. But I see, you have no arguments to justify your opinion. Java 17:31, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandals

Is there a new news item about CP out, or is that edittext kid really this pathetic? I'm going to go see if they're using proxies, and see if I can trace back to their original IP. If any more come along, block 'em. --Hojimachong^talk 17:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Phew, I blocked an IP used by like, fifty of 'em. I think this might stem the tide. --Hojimachong^talk 17:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll go leave a note for CPWebmaster. --Hojimachong^talk 17:51, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I know what he's trying to do; he's editing from proxies used by thousands of people, hoping that we will permanently block those proxies. So if you block an IP, do it for a "soft" block (a month or so). That way, any damage we do to existing users will go away in a month. --Hojimachong^talk 17:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

• Your are very smart, Hoji. It is true. He is using multiple computers from around the Oakland area, perhaps library computers. Blocks should be strong enough to make him move onto another computer, but mild to allow others to use Conservapedia. I hadn't thought of that before and probably have blocked an entire library. I will lower the blocks I have made. --<<-David R->> 18:15, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Answer

Spelled backwards, that name is a mass vandal that showed up earlier. DanH 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Standing up against Andy

Good for you. You should join the Cabal. --Hacker^{(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)} 08:13, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what Cabal you are talking about... --CPAdmin1 14:53, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- United States

- Columbine High School massacre

- World War II

- Global warming

- World War I

- Adolf Hitler

- Battle of Thermopylae

- Canada

- William Shakespeare

- The Holocaust

- Abraham Lincoln

- Jesus

- Vietnam War

- China

What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Bush is a good man

Do you know anything about Bush's opinions on genetically altering fruit? I think this is messing with nature they way it was created. How do you feel? Do we have a page that discusses this? If not I will make one. Good job on all your articles I love the way you write them they! I am new but can't wait to start writing articles. I may be asking for advice. Thanks--BushRules12 23:27, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia

Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Liberal

The article on holocaust denial is extremnely liberally-biased. Sisterhix 22:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you speak Spanish

Gatos y chili en mis pantalones. Quiero bailar con cubiertas extrañas de asiento de lavabo y chillido "el Encurtido para la vida"--BushRules12 00:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)