User talk:TheAmericanRedoubt

Christian Conservatives

Be strong, be of good courage, God Bless America, Long live the Republic. God speed to everyone who accesses this page!

Second Amendment-supporting American citizens gifted their firearms to gun free zone-gun control supporting British citizens during World War II via The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes

Back from my American Redoubt Permaculture Project

I am back from my American Redoubt-based permaculture offgrid homesteading project I have been working on since March of last year and will be able to contribute again to Conservapedia with a focus on permaculture and my usual prepper interests. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2016 (EST)

Sources for Public Domain Pictures

I post this since I hope to soon be uploading several hundred Category:Firearms, Category:Pro Second Amendment, and Category:Survivalism photos to enhance the SEO visibility of numerous new articles I will be creating in these categories. TheAmericanRedoubt 11:57, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Public Domain pictures and pictures with generous copyright provisions

Flikr and Creative Commons:

• http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/
• http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_identify_public_domain_creative_commons_photos_flickr.html
• http://www.sxc.hu/

Some other good sites for public domain images:

• http://www.pdphoto.org
• http://digital.nypl.org/mmpco/index.cfm
• http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/
• NASA and USGS photos are also in the public domain
• http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/_use.htm

Source: Thanks to User:Conservative/sandboxfile

---

Comments

In general, please keep your comments to a specific Talk Page about a specific article. Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt 22:27, 10 February 2015 (EST)

---

Important: Wiki policy related to Conservapedia's Manual of Style

The Conservapedia Style Guide has a policy (If it does not have this policy, I will create it after I do this edit) of one link to a particular article at Conservapedia within a given article.

For example, a gun related article can only have one link to Conservapedia's gun control article.

Why is this policy important?

Failure to follow this policy creates difficult to read link rich articles which are unappealing to the eye. And once your article is unappealing to the eye, people will quickly click off it. So a link rich article is self-defeating in terms of getting people to dig more deeply into a subject at a wiki. Furthermore, it will cause people to leave the website sooner rather than later.

In addition, most people judge a book by its cover. An unappealing looking article is assumed to be an inferior article by most people.

I removed about a dozen duplicate internal links from this article: Ammunition control. It looks better now, but it still needs much improvement as far as being too link rich. Please remove the duplicate links. For example, each state mentioned in the article (New York, California, etc.), should only have one link to its respective article at this wiki. Conservative 02:12, 14 February 2015 (EST)

The policy I am referring to is located at Internal link policy. Please take the time to read Conservapedia's Manual of Style.

I hope this message to you is helpful. I would hate for you to lose the opportunity of gaining a loyal audience due to something that is easily avoidable.

Please go through your key articles (your most important articles) and remove the link richness. You can remove the link richness in the other articles as you continue to edit them. Conservative 02:21, 14 February 2015 (EST)

Thank you. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:33, 14 February 2015 (EST)

Info you requested

• The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition by William Strunk Jr. (Author), E. B. White (Author),

• On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser

Just got them on Audible.com:

• http://www.audible.com/pd/Arts-Entertainment/On-Writing-Well-Audio-Collection-Audiobook/B002V8KQLC
• http://www.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/The-Elements-of-Style-Recorded-Books-Edition-Audiobook/B002V1NRTW

Thanks. TheAmericanRedoubt 03:18, 14 February 2015 (EST)

Layout of articles

The Manual of style has a section on the layout of pages; in sequence, the final sections should be references, see also, and then external links. Just a heads up, considering your recent articles do not follow this progression. DanielJackson 23:22, 14 February 2015 (EST)

Thank you for the headups, however, what you state is not correct necessarily. There are reasons for putting the "References" or "Notes" section last. If you do not, then sometimes, when you need to put a footnote on a "See Also" or on an "External Links" (as I sometime do), you will get an error message.

For the best guidance on a well-written article that follows the Conservapedia format and has a high visibility, please see one of our most popular articles atheism. TheAmericanRedoubt 23:35, 14 February 2015 (EST)

Problem solved. I appended the manual of style. Conservative 01:06, 15 February 2015 (EST)

Makes sense. Good explanation: Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Layout. Thank you for the clarification. TheAmericanRedoubt 01:29, 15 February 2015 (EST)

Image uploading

The uploading of copyrighted images is prohibited, unless consent from the copyright owner is obtained. Public domain images, or images available under a Creative Commons type of license, are preferred. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Will do. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Thanks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (EST)

Pages with an enormous amount of internal links with small amount of space between them. Pages with big see also sections

Please keep these things in mind:

1. re: the article Vote with your feet and articles like this.

An internal article link to a Conservapedia article is a decision for people. Am I going to click this link or not. When you have a lot of internal links without much text between them, you are flooding people with a lot of decision at once. People don't like that.

In addition, it is unpleasing to the eye. Too much of anything on a page is not good. A Stanford study found that 50% of a web pages credibility is how it looks.

2. Keep category tags very relevant to the articles at hand. Use them where a lot of people will clearly see the connection. Avoid category tags which tangential in nature and people are not apt to use.

3. Please avoid category tag battles. A very small percentage of people use the tags. Battles over category tags don't make sense in terms of a cost/benefit ratio. The time spent arguing over them is just not worth it.

Focusing on making your content more informative, well-written and more pleasing to the eye (people do judge a book by its cover) is much more worth it. Conservative (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

4. Please avoid big "see also" sections with a ton of links. (see #1 above).

5. I have mentioned points 1-4 several times now. But we keep having these needless disputes at Conservapedia with other editors. Let's stop having repetitive unnecessary battles with other editors.

Again, thank for adding content to Conservapedia. Conservative (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

Right on. Thanks for the reminders. TheAmericanRedoubt (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

I added point #5 above. I know you are a smart guy. We really shouldn't be having these type of repetitive battles. I will contact you on why I cannot continue to be a referee. I don't want to see this wiki lose editors over unneeded battles. I did help you with Wsacht, but now it seems like you are battling more reasonable/helpful editors. Conservative (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

I put this former article into a workspace until the article is cleaned up as per my points above: User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Vote with your feet. Once the article is cleaned up an admin can move it. Conservative (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (EDT)