User talk:Iduan/Archive6

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Those were the cast bios that I took from their website. I paraphrased them a bit. --Baptist500 17:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)


Please don't take my opinion that redirects are highly over valued as an insult. Thanks for taking the time to formalize. StephenW 23:47, 6 January 2008 (EST)


So will you be creating rules for me as a judge as well or should I just sort-a figure problems, assign points, add up the team's points at the end of the day? Thanks! --~BCSTalk2ME 09:31, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Based on what was said on contest three - I would think that all you would need to do is solve conflicts (making rulings if necessary) and make sure everyone is scoring in a tidy way (because if there is a conflict, and all people have is a bunch of random diffs, it'll be hard to deal with). I mean really you're a great enough editor that everyone trusts you to act when you see fit - and that's what I would encourage you to do--IDuan 15:30, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Distorting Facts?

As per this, the user only changes He to He/she and Christianity to religion. With respect to the first case, this is a question based around the Constitution, and given that the Constitution does not disallow female presidents then the possibility of such must be recognised, even if it hasn't yet happened. As for the second, the "separation of Church and state" is not limited to Christianity (it is used in many countries with respect to Islam and Hinduism) and although the question appears in an American Government Exam it is not worded to apply only to America, and hence the phrase "censor religion" is indeed more appropriate to "censor Christianity". So while the user should be encouraged to discuss his edits on the talk page before editing course content, they are by no means "distorting the truth" or a blockable offense as a result TheGuy 00:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Just to clarify, the specific wording of the question is "Which of the following must be true about every President of the United States? ", not "Which of the following has been true about every President of the United States?" There is no implication of the past tense, so whether or not every President has been male is irrelevant, because the question is about the limitations imposed by the Constitution for all past, present and future Presidents, and there is nothing in it which says a female cannot be President. TheGuy 00:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Thanks for adding the "thumb" attribute. I have had trouble remembering that it's needed if you want a caption to appear. --Ed Poor Talk 11:30, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Oh no problem - yeah the thumb part can be difficult to remember--IDuan 11:35, 12 January 2008 (EST)


May I suggest asking any past contributors of note in prior contests to join the current one? The more people we have actively involved, the better -- especially for those who have shown a past interest. Learn together 14:25, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Good idea LT! I just asked a few people--IDuan 15:48, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Whom to pick next

Give me advice on whom to pick next!--Aschlafly 18:38, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm, I would say that Learn Together and Sharon are the best people out there - if you can I would say snatch them up ASAP. If both of them are taken, GregLarson could be an interesting choice - he just came back recently so he might be looking to re-establish himself.--IDuan 18:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Hate to sound pedantic, but 12am? Do you mean midnight Saturday, or 24 hours later midnight Sunday? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Uhmm... well, how bout this: in about three hours--IDuan 18:51, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Actually, I agree with your block as well - it was going from a little misunderstanding to a little ridiculous. Are you sure about increasing the block time though? I dunno, I thought one day would probably be enough for cooling off, and Aschlafly didn't seem too bothered by it... plus, RingWraith has made some decent contributions as well (for example, helping Karajou out with Lord of the Rings stuff). Ultimately I'll leave it to your judgement as well, but I guess I thought that just one day would be... nice, I suppose. :)

Oh, and I almost forgot! Thanks for reminding/inviting me to the new Contest, I almost missed that. I wasn't a huge contributor last time but it was nice to be remembered, so I went and joined again. ^_^ Feebasfactor 20:50, 12 January 2008 (EST)
I increased the block time primarily because I saw that he had already been blocked once for a parody, but also because at what he was saying month blocks are not uncommon, given that he was attacking another user. And besides, one more day will only calm him down more. Glad to have you aboard in the contest--IDuan 20:52, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Fair enough; it's true that many blocks are much worse (just be careful about interpreting previous incidents though - I remember I was once blocked because I made a mistake editing and someone wrote "troll" in the reversion comment!) Feebasfactor 21:02, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Awesome start!!!

Awesome start!!!--Aschlafly 00:04, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Let's leave it open to new contestants, right? Maybe a new star will enter on Monday or Tuesday even!--Aschlafly 11:10, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah that sounds great! Hey just out of curiosity - have there really been 90-some-odd Echews? They're causing me some frustration now as they keep popping up!--IDuan 11:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan,can you please give me a link to the page with the acceptable WantedPages? Thanks! Luke 13:11, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Sure Luke! ((Conservapedia:Contest4/Wanted))--IDuan 13:12, 13 January 2008 (EST)


Yes, thanks. You should pick up a couple of points for that! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 16:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Dear Iduan

(I meant to submit this last night but editing was turned off....) Sorry, dude. I know exactly how you feel. After I was denied edit rights (despite having block rights and the backing of at least one other sysop) I was really mad as well. Then, while I was asked to make substantial contributions others were promoted without having made any edits, and I even noticed some with edit privileges who were blocked for being vandals (and still continue to have night edit rights, incidentally). I, too, love editing at Conservapedia but this was a harsh and undeserved slap in the face. Frankly, the only reason I didn't quit right then in there is because I still had three weeks left of winter break and editing CP was a great way to fill it...

I hope you eventually decide to come back -- better yet, I hope you get your edit rights (and by virtue of your own merits, not based on which team you're on in the contest) and that you come back willingly. I'll miss you, and with you gone, I'll actually have to make sure I format all my refs correctly! HelpJazz 11:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Hey, just wanted to offer my condolences as well. You were always a great editor (I can't imagine how much work you put into those templates) and you were also fair and cool all the time. I'm sorry that Conservapedia didn't work out for you. I suppose you could always look for another wiki to fill your time, but of course Conservapedia is unique and once you've poured so much effort and time into a project it's not the same... Here's still hoping you'll be invited back with all the rights you deserve.
P.S. Good work organizing the latest contest, hope you at least get to leave on a good note. Feebasfactor 12:09, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks both of you - it's not so much as I'm mad as I'm just unbearably frustrated. But hey, I'm not leaving quite yet - I'm going to let the contest finish out (hey, if the team I'm on wins, I can leave on a high note I guess!)--IDuan 19:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)


Thanks for the help dude!

User: MetcalfeM


I think you should reconsider. You have some good points here but do you really have to leave? --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 22:28, 16 January 2008 (EST)

You know right now, frankly I'm half way. The points I made there aren't why I'm thinking about leaving - it's just the frustration that is the byproduct of those points. But you know, until just today it hadn't really hit me how much I'd miss CP, that's why I actually took that message down (and it will at least temporarily stay down), because I felt like pretending that everything was normal, and ultimately I'm not sure what direction I'll take. I'm not going to lie, the fact that I was ((Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/Iduan|nominated for sysop)) does play a role in it - because even if I fail, it shows that I've made some progress, which should lessen the frustration (it's not as though I'm staying if I make sysop and leaving if I don't lol). But thank you Tim for the note, it's people like you that I've enjoyed so much about Conservapedia and it's why I'm having such difficulty leaving!--IDuan 22:34, 16 January 2008 (EST)
I have had some frustrating experiences here also. Including some long debates against Andy. I even stopped contributing for a while. (8 edis from 8/28 til 1/9) (thus my "no vote" on your sysop nomination.) I think if you stick around and contribute, you will end up with the rights sooner or later. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 00:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the kind words. I will probably stick around for a bit longer than I originally planned, definitely until the end of the nomination (assuming that ends in a reasonable amount of time ...), and then I'll re-evaluate (with the results from that and from experiences over that time) and see where I'm at, although really if too much time goes by I'm going to have to immediately leave, as especially given the type of work I do (browsing articles, checking recent changes, and editing templates), even doing the smallest thing is sometimes time consuming without rights (I can't edit templates without going to someone - even if I just need to fix grammar in a template), I can't delete articles without tracking someone down ... and so on. But hey, so far no one has come out and opposed me on the nomination, so I suppose there's hope.--IDuan 00:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)
There is a lot of "history" to why getting extra editing rights and sysop permissions isn't as straightforward as it should be, Iduan. There is still a slight shadow over the site, which I thought had been lifted, hence my return last December, but please hang in there. There are at least 4 very good, dedicated and hard working editors who are all deserving of receiving the sysop's mops and buckets, and I hope to see you all getting the permissions sooner rather than later. With a good team of genuinely motivated sysops, who aren't just in it for the power trip, we could even see the return of 24-hour editing, as Andy could be confident that we would deal with vandalism across all time zones. I know it is frustrating, I've been in your shoes also, but everything comes to he who waits. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:18, 17 January 2008 (EST)
Fox, thanks for those encouraging words because I have been considering my own future here as well. I made my first edit in I think May 2007. However, I have been informed (anonymously) that certain people have been circulating rumours about me (I know that I am not alone in this) and fear that it has jeopardized any hope I have of being able to accomplish more. I think that Fox, PJR, Iduan and myself are probably some of the most "wiki"-ish editors here. (I am on the editorial board of the internal wiki for a large company so do have some experience in running these things.) However, it is dis-spiriting when all of my active fellow editors are overlooked. BrianCo 14:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)
I hope neither of you leave. You're some of the best editors here.-MexMax 14:29, 20 January 2008 (EST)

I think you are both vital to CP, along with some of the other grinders (and I mean that in a complimentary sense) here. I cannot over-emphasize that enough. Your "sleeves rolled up" attitudes are amazing! Please think carefully before deciding to move on. We have shown with the competition that we have the makings of a great team here, and things can now only get better :) Of course, don't stay just because I've asked, stay because you want to. There is so much raw material here to work with, and still so many fantastic and needed articles yet to be created. Brian, I hope that particular boogey man is laid to rest for good. Don't let it get you down. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Rumors? Ugh. This is why I avoid wikipolitics.-MexMax 14:36, 20 January 2008 (EST)

I've passed you in the contest!

Oh, it's on Iduan. It. Is. On.-MexMax 00:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Lol, you know we're on the same team - right?--IDuan 11:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)
What's wrong with some friendly internecine rivalry :-) ?-MexMax 12:05, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Haha I suppose nothing, unless one user is unaware of the rivalry lol, well hey - you probably deserve second more than I do anyway - keep up the good work.--IDuan 16:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Gentlemn, I think you should both defer further entries and let the nice people on Team Eagle win. ;-) Learn together 17:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)
lol, you may be right Lt, I'll consider it.--IDuan 17:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Goodness! Great job!

We're within 100; I'm intending to help now! And, sorry for betraying you for BrianCo... :-)-MexMax 23:49, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Lol, i guess I'll forgive you. Oh man, I've been typing so much today - and a lot of it is really boring like NCAA Men's Basketball - which took FOREVER - so in conclusion, my hands hurt lol--IDuan 23:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)
(P.S. for some reason i called you brianco in my edit summary - oh, maybe because i saw that you typed the name as i was typing the edit summary ... meh - my head hurts too :'( )--IDuan 23:54, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I have no doubt your hands hurt; are you up to almost 700? Man, I'm at barely 1/21st of that. I'll get there...-MexMax 00:23, 20 January 2008 (EST)

You'll do great - I'm not going to be here tomorrow due to a trip - but if you need any help with anything tonight i should be up for about 3 more hours, my AIM sn is lssacDuan--IDuan 00:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Good work!

Be happy. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Haha, you too - now to have the judges pick the winner! (Side note: are you aware that your spelling "good" wrong?)--IDuan 12:12, 20 January 2008 (EST)
Iduan, is there somewhere where one can see a breakdown of the points that each person claims? I thought that was one of the requirements for the competition. BrianCo 14:04, 20 January 2008 (EST)


It wasn't actually mine. I just tried to categorize it. :-) --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 17:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)

I'm afraid i didn't like his categorization. --Ben Talk 17:14, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Nice template but...

I didn't see what you were doing until you got my school! Darn them for being high in the alphabetical order!

By the way, since I see you have upload rights, you could use this lovely image to supplement your lovely template :) HelpJazz 21:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Move Plate

Oh. Thanks, hadn't known about that. Barikada 00:41, 23 January 2008 (EST)

JimmyB and the Fact Tags

(My new band name?) I think the tag was needed, as the statement is in clear violation of the CP:G (attribution) and CP:C (always cite sources). Whether or not he was trolling is disputable, but the result of his edit was correct. HelpJazz 16:30, 23 January 2008 (EST) PS: Like the new acronyms? I'm hoping they'll catch on so I can save some typing. I cite CP:G quite often ;-)

Some facts are indisputable - that's been CP's policy for as long as I can remember. Note that the rule your referring to is not always cite sources, but always cite your sources - which is slightly different (always cite your sources is more of, if you have sources, cite them). The acronyms aren't bad at all :D (and don't worry, my block of JimmyB was for multiple reasons)--IDuan 16:33, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I'm sure the block was reasonable, but I dispute... actually I just reread it, and as the article stands it technically doesn't need any sources. (It also technically doesn't say much of anything.) Someone edited it after me and added another wishy-word (and I added some of my own) such that the article now satisfies CP:G, and since there are no sources, there's nothing to cite. Continue on... HelpJazz 16:37, 23 January 2008 (EST)


Click on the link to vote in my poll. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)


I thank you for treating me with leniency, instead of slapping me with a three day ban. It is most appreciated, good sir. Barikada 01:26, 24 January 2008 (EST)

PM and Prime Minister templates

Please read this and this before going any further. Philip J. Rayment 04:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia as a "family-freindly" entity

I fail to see how being clear about what Don Imus said constitutes being "unfriendly" to any fmailies that I know of. Certainly, as the father of two small children, I'd want them to KNOW that it is UNACCEPTABLE to call a group of African-American athletes "nappy-headed hoes," and I'd want them to know WHY, which requires explaining what a "ho" is. Keeping out the quote softens what Imus did, which smacks of the attitude, which I've hard from several conservatives, that what Imus did "wasn't so bad," and "got blown up by the media." The fact is, he made a RACIST and SEXIST comment, and educating our children how NOT to be those two things involves some pretty tough choices. We must, as a nation, be willing to ADMIT the institutionalized RACISM and SEXISM inherent in much of our society and popular culture. If you wish to ban me, feel free. User:Artiefisk

I don't know why you'd think I banned you, nor do I know why you think that putting red herrings in caps strengthens your argument, but nonetheless - your most recent addition is fine, however we want the language of this encyclopedia to remain clean.--IDuan 15:29, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Last ban

Alright, fair enough. I just want to know which entry I was banned for. Logic would suggest it was Talk:Affirmative Action President, however your acts of censorship and accusations of trolling over at Talk:Genius_bias would suggest otherwise. I figured I'd check with you before restoring my own words. Barikada 20:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)

(sorry for the late response here - I was creating an article) - Yeah, the comment at Genius bias is the one--IDuan 20:57, 25 January 2008 (EST)
'salright. But I'm not quite clear on how that was trolling... Barikada 20:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Not again!

I welcome them only to find you've blocked them! Ha! --GDewey 23:54, 25 January 2008 (EST)

(In response to your post on my page): I saw DavidR welcome Veggiechips and wanted to get in quick. Too quick obviously! --GDewey 00:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan, we have to close up a bit early tonight. Get some rest and start early tomorrow morning! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Aww seriously? Haha, I just got on a bit ago! Well hey, I'll finish what I was doing tomorrow afternoon then.--IDuan 00:06, 26 January 2008 (EST)


Use {{speedy}} or {{db|reason}} instead of the regular Delete template. It also sorts things into the "Speedy Deletion Candidate" category. --Jenkins 16:03, 26 January 2008 (EST)

It's a somewhat formal issue. The delete tag should be used for articles where discussion is encouraged (which is why it offers an AFD link). Vandalism should be speedied.
Practically, this is triply moot, though:
  1. Speedy Deletion Candidates are rarely checked by sysops: The oldest entry in that category was tagged (by me, even) in SEPTEMBER.
  2. Regular Deletion Candidates are even less monitored: The (potentially) oldest entry in that category was tagged in JUNE.
  3. Deletion discussion - on this site? Har. In the end, it all grinds down to non-binding discussion until some sysop arbitrarily decides to delete it or to declare that the nomination was an attempt at liberal censorship.
In the end, unless a sysop notices the "DELETE THIS" in the Recent Changes, these things are going to rot either way. But we might as well keep pretending that there is a difference between them. --Jenkins 16:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)
That's a very cynical attitude! But not far wrong though, unfortunately! (I'm not endorsing point 3, though.)
The problem I have with categories is that they need to be regularly checked. (As far as I know, there's no way to get notified when a new page appears in a given category.) Perhaps we should have a page where we list speedy deletion candidates (or do we already?). If that page is on our watchlists, we will notice if it gets changed (something gets added to it). But that means putting a notice on the page concerned (assuming that's actually necessary) and on the speedy deletion page. Perhaps you (plural) could have a think about it, and start a discussion somewhere (and invite likely-interested parties to participate in the discussion).
As for point 3, the main problem is very little discussion by anyone. It doesn't need to be binding; if there is a consensus, surely a sysop can act on that consensus (or explicitly reject it if he thinks he really should). But the severe lack of interest in discussion is the main problem, I think.
We've tried implementing a deletion process a couple of times before, but I don't think that we've ever really got it right, and that's as much as anything because there was no real discussion on how it should work.
Philip J. Rayment 05:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)


Good work! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Haha thanks - though you and Dan were the one's that actually got the work done!--IDuan 17:00, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Goodbye Iduan :-(

You'll be missed. I hope you might come back here after a while; you were a very hard worker and a very, very nice guy. See you soon, -MexMax 11:33, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Iduan, I'm so sorry to see you go. I can appreciate your frustration as I have also been a sysop candidate for a long time and am still waiting for my contributions to be recognized. However, I still believe Mr. Aschlafly when he says that Conservapedia is a meritocracy and hope that my contributions will ultimately be recognized despite what I know others to have said behind my back. I too have tried to improve Conservapedia both in content as well as quality and appearance but have been disappointed by being unable to accomplish certain tasks without having to jump through hoops. As the site owner, the future of Conservapedia lies in the hands of Mr. Aschlafly. As a true conservative and he is a man of his word, so I am convinced he will shortly promote one or two editors of proven longstanding just as he has promised us all over the past six months. To do otherwise would be tantamount to taxation without representation, a liberal position that would never be promulgated here. I encourage you to stay and persevere as your contributions have been incredibly valuable to the overall standing of Conservapedia. I intend to continue here for a while longer hoping for a sign of recognition and encourage you to join me in doing the same. Conservapedia is a trustworthy encyclopedia and I have faith that the trust is a two-way thing. God bless you whatever you choose. BrianCo 14:11, 27 January 2008 (EST)
To be fair, though, Iduan can not even get edit rights, while others (who have done significantly less work) have been given them (not to mention the two-entry sysop). I asked for edit rights and Andy couldn't even give me a believable answer. Is it really credible to say that if Iduan holds on longer he will be made sysop? Iduan (and my) grief isn't that he is being denied rights, but that he is given no reason for such. A simple "you are too liberal" or "you need to make X number of edits" or anything that's actually verifiable is much better than being ignored or hand-waved to. HelpJazz 15:01, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Come back

This is not the way to go. Your work has been appreciated and useful. You don't need more to be excellent as you have been. So, come back and be proud of your work with the silent applause of many. See the example of Learn together and others. This project is not of speed but of resistance. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:15, 27 January 2008 (EST)


This is much better! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:47, 31 January 2008 (EST)


I was simply trying to even the score a bit. The Liberal Bias page has "Examples of Liberal Style," so I see no reason that the Conservative Bias page can't have the same thing. I don't believe this is vandalism, simply myself adding content to this Wiki, which I thought was the whole point of a Wiki in the first place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lexda (talk)