User talk:Learn together/3

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, Aziraphale 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the heads up

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. Learn together 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)


...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. HelpJazz 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. Learn together 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)


I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy was out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. Feebasfactor 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. Learn together 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Battle of Aegospotami/Delium?

Seeing as how Battle of Aegospotami was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --JakeC 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. Learn together 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --JakeC 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)
You're already helping. ;-) Learn together 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Philosophy categories

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. JFPerry 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)


Hey, thanks for reworking Christian Domestic Discipline! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --JakeC 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)


Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming contest. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--IDuan 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. Learn together 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

New articles?

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

  • You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.

Erm, those had been redirects. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --Jenkins 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like User:Learn together/Contest4.--IDuan 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Double Redirect

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review this list before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I think you get a point Ed. ;-) Learn together 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Your Article

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to Drunk - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--IDuan 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) Learn together 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you

For addressing this. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. Jinxmchue 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. Learn together 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. Jinxmchue 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

MSM Redirect

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --Jdellaro 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to User talk:Philip J. Rayment and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. Learn together 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)


You have some :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)


Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--IDuan 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--IDuan 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks Learn together 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)
BTW, good job with your own work and editing. Learn together 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--IDuan 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. Learn together 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

ID book

Intelligent Design (book) is the proper name, not Intelligent Design (Book), as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

It sound good, thanks Learn together 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Contest 4

Congratulations! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Great Job LT!--IDuan 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. BrianCo 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from Freedom. Very well done, again!!!--Aschlafly 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) Learn together 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

What is your secret to win every contest?
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) Learn together 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Ban for username needed

PastafarianBeliver. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) Jinxmchue 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. Learn together 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
BethanyS banned him already. Jinxmchue 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)


It's starting to look like User:Barikada didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. this edit. Jinxmchue 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... Barikada 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. Learn together 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm pretty sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. Barikada 13:51, 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)

Contest 5

Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the draft of the point system for contest 5 has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--IDuan 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--IDuan 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)
I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. Learn together 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)


Nice to see you in action again. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) Learn together 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Trial Contest

Hey Learn together, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here.--IDuan 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Gospel of Thomas

Please review this edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. Learn together 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Heads of government

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA World Factbook defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [1] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dadsnagem2 (talk)


From no where in the middle of a journey, --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--Kuli 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. Learn together 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--Kuli 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--Kuli 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


Thank you so much for you help! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) Learn together 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)


Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. HelpJazz 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, and thanks for not being mean on the Philip Pullman page.


Why did you revert my edit to deer? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. Learn together 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). HelpJazz 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Would this source be better [2]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [3] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people world-wide [4], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
This is a serious site, and, come on. DanH 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sons of Jacob

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to list Jacob's 14 sons in the Jacob article at any point in time? --Ed Poor Talk 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. Learn together 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. Learn together 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther, Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?BertSchlossberg 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


Satan has been unprotected. DanH 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)