Difference between revisions of "User talk:DouglasA"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Article Deletion: Question withdrawn. The deletion of "directly proportional" (it wasn't "direct proportionality") was appropriate.)
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Feel free to leave any messages here. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 10:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Hi (I'm not sure what to call this section) ==
  
−
== The Chosen (deleted) ==
+
I have been a CP editor since 2017 and I see that you became inactive on this site since 2015 and have become active again. I've tried my best to bring useful and conservative content to this site, but some of the edits I've seen in your edit history have made me nervous. I've developed a rapport with several admins/sysops on this site, but I have gotten the impression that you may be more strict than they are. I am attempting to be diplomatic and polite but also honest [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:27, 19 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It's a pleasure to meet you. I've always believed in the approach 'move forward with what you think is right, and when your colleagues disagree, come to a consensus.' [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] ([[User talk:DouglasA|talk]]) 06:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I notice that you're big about Christian-friendly content, take a look at some of the essays that I've created, especially [[Essay:Virtue: Christian vs secular]] and [[Essay:Counter-cultural Christianity]]. The point of these was to show how people who hold fast to Christian values. I am dismayed at the fact that I haven't picked up contributors like all of the "greatest conservative..." and "worst liberal..." essays. I'm not sure what you think about Christian rock, but in my songs list, I've tried to point out the Christian songs that run very counter to the very anti-Christian messages in mainstream music, which is surprisingly difficult as many Christian Rock and CCM artists avoid subject matter that could be uncomfortable. But when they do address those issues, the message really shines. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:44, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
−
Was the article about the novel or the film? The novel is an important contemporary bit of Jewish-American writing, and there's nothing wrong with the film. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 12:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Robocop ==
  
−
== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==
+
I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Paul Verhoeven is a member of the Liberal "Jesus Seminar" and I think that played a role in why the movie is "Also a grotesque parody of Christ's resurrection." Since I knew it was hailed as a classic and a pop-culture icon, I wanted to see it for curiosity, and was so appalled by it's blatantly liberal, ham-fisted, anti-capitalism message. I got even angrier when I saw interviews the creators condemning capitalism when capitalism made them rich. Does it really depict cops as bad though? The cop characters who are most prominent in the movie, Alex Murphy (the guy who becomes Robocop), his partner Anne Lewis, and the sergeant Warren Reed were characters who actually believed in doing what cops should do. To quote the Robocop wiki about Reed: "To him, a police officer was not merely doing a job - they were a vital staple of society, the face of civilized society, representing the people, the restraint and the triumph of law over lawlessness." The real problem is that it depicts the Detroit Police Department as being owned by OCP, promoting the liberal myth that corporations control the government when in reality it's the government that has too much control over private business. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 00:49, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:I had no idea that Verhoeven was in the Jesus Seminar.  Doesn't give you much faith in that group's credentials, does it?! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] ([[User talk:DouglasA|talk]]) 15:55, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::I think its also worth noting how the movie's marketing makes it look like it's going to be just a movie about a cool robot cop, and if it was, it would be a much cooler movie, but no, they had to put in all that liberal anti-capitalism nonsense in the movie. I assume that your calling Verhoeven a "smut-peddler" is due to the fact that he directed Showgirls, right? Showgirls should also be in the worst liberal movies list, but I could never bring myself to watch such filth even to describe why it's so bad. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
  
−
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel.  The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
+
== Please do not remove any of my atheism related articles ==
  
−
== The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11 ==
+
DouglasA, please do not remove any of my atheism related articles. For example, you deleted my [[Jamila Bey]] article which I restored.
  
−
The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
+
Conservapedia's [[atheism]] article receives over 10,000 page views a month (See: [[Conservapedia:Atheism articles statistics]]). And one of the reasons this is happening is that Conservapedia has over 1,900 atheism-related articles.
  
−
== The Conservapedia  Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==
+
You wrote in your edit summary: "Non-encyclopedic: Liberal nonsense". There was nothing , non-encyclopedic, liberal or nonsensical about that article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:34, September 21, 2022 (EDT)
−
 
 
−
The panel proceeding have begun here:  [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Just a reading suggestion... ==
 
−
 
 
−
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution#During_a_vandal_attack_when_I_was_in_a_hurry_and_tired.2C_I_may_have_reverted_User_SamCoulter.27s_legitimate_edits.|Sam Coulter has helped improve the article]], not remove content without reason. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 17:59, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Bill Bryson article ==
 
−
 
 
−
Dear Douglas A, Some time ago you deleted one of the articles I created, on author Bill Bryson, with the comment "not notable". ''(08:59, 18 January 2011 DouglasA (deleted "Bill Bryson" (not notable) )'' I would like to ask you to please reconsider this deletion and to reinstate this page, as Bill Bryson is in fact a very notable author, and it took some time and effort for me to create that article. Bill Bryson is a well-known author who has written more than 20 books, many of them best-sellers. Millions of his books have been sold in the U.S. and translated into dozens of foreign langauages. He has won many awards for his writing on travel, language, science and history, including: 2010 Educational Writers Award; 2005 President's Award from the Royal Society of Chemistry; Author of the Year at the British Book Awards; and he has also been awarded honorary degrees by numerous universities. In 2006 the mayor of Des Moines awarded Bryson the key to the city. There are also several pages at Conservapedia that mention Bill Bryson and/or quote him in their references, please see: [[Gettysburg Address]] (references Bill Bryson), [[Des Moines]] (mentions that ''The Life and TImes of the Thunderbolt Kid,'' Bill Bryson's memoir of growing up in Des Moines, was a 2006 bestseller), [[Anthony Comstock]] (references Bill Bryson) and [[Ellis Island]] (quotes Bill Bryson). So I do believe that this particular page was deleted in error and would respectfully ask that it be reinstated. Thank you very much for your consideration. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 08:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Hi Douglas, I noticed you are logged in today, but still haven't replied to this - what are your thoughts on the Bill Bryson article? (see above). Thank you, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:16, 30 November 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::Hi, this is the third and final request to reinstate the article on Bill Bryson, author, that I created, or kindly provide a reason for deletion. I've been quite patient, bringing it to your attention back in August, and again in November, but it is now December and you still haven't replied. I can't see any valid reason for the article on Bill Bryson to de deleted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:03, 9 December 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==
 
−
 
 
−
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]
 
−
 
 
−
Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:04, 16 November 2011 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
==A serious Biblical matter==
 
−
 
 
−
Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
 
−
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
 
−
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
 
−
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}
 
−
 
 
−
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself!  The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
 
−
 
 
−
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted:  any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
 
−
 
 
−
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky.  As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an  insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
Merry Christmas!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:15, 22 December 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Article Deletion ==
 
−
 
 
−
Some of the articles that you are deleting where quite useful articles. For example, the article on direct proportionality was quite decent and touched upon a number of topics. I suggest you restore it. Cheers [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 21:22, 26 January 2013 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:And while you're in the mood you may want to delete [[Charters]]. I have transferred the information to the singular version. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:50, 26 January 2013 (EST)
 
−
::and [[The Punic Wars]]  [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:06, 26 January 2013 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
At a glance, most the deletions seem fine, but I wonder about a few of them, such as the deletion of direct proportionality as mentioned above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:53, 26 January 2013 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:Question withdrawn.  The deletion of "directly proportional" (it wasn't "direct proportionality") was appropriate.  Thanks, Douglas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 26 January 2013 (EST)
 

Latest revision as of 16:34, September 21, 2022

Hi (I'm not sure what to call this section)

I have been a CP editor since 2017 and I see that you became inactive on this site since 2015 and have become active again. I've tried my best to bring useful and conservative content to this site, but some of the edits I've seen in your edit history have made me nervous. I've developed a rapport with several admins/sysops on this site, but I have gotten the impression that you may be more strict than they are. I am attempting to be diplomatic and polite but also honest Shobson20 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

It's a pleasure to meet you. I've always believed in the approach 'move forward with what you think is right, and when your colleagues disagree, come to a consensus.' DouglasA (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
I notice that you're big about Christian-friendly content, take a look at some of the essays that I've created, especially Essay:Virtue: Christian vs secular and Essay:Counter-cultural Christianity. The point of these was to show how people who hold fast to Christian values. I am dismayed at the fact that I haven't picked up contributors like all of the "greatest conservative..." and "worst liberal..." essays. I'm not sure what you think about Christian rock, but in my songs list, I've tried to point out the Christian songs that run very counter to the very anti-Christian messages in mainstream music, which is surprisingly difficult as many Christian Rock and CCM artists avoid subject matter that could be uncomfortable. But when they do address those issues, the message really shines. Shobson20 (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Robocop

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but Paul Verhoeven is a member of the Liberal "Jesus Seminar" and I think that played a role in why the movie is "Also a grotesque parody of Christ's resurrection." Since I knew it was hailed as a classic and a pop-culture icon, I wanted to see it for curiosity, and was so appalled by it's blatantly liberal, ham-fisted, anti-capitalism message. I got even angrier when I saw interviews the creators condemning capitalism when capitalism made them rich. Does it really depict cops as bad though? The cop characters who are most prominent in the movie, Alex Murphy (the guy who becomes Robocop), his partner Anne Lewis, and the sergeant Warren Reed were characters who actually believed in doing what cops should do. To quote the Robocop wiki about Reed: "To him, a police officer was not merely doing a job - they were a vital staple of society, the face of civilized society, representing the people, the restraint and the triumph of law over lawlessness." The real problem is that it depicts the Detroit Police Department as being owned by OCP, promoting the liberal myth that corporations control the government when in reality it's the government that has too much control over private business. Shobson20 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

I had no idea that Verhoeven was in the Jesus Seminar. Doesn't give you much faith in that group's credentials, does it?! DouglasA (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
I think its also worth noting how the movie's marketing makes it look like it's going to be just a movie about a cool robot cop, and if it was, it would be a much cooler movie, but no, they had to put in all that liberal anti-capitalism nonsense in the movie. I assume that your calling Verhoeven a "smut-peddler" is due to the fact that he directed Showgirls, right? Showgirls should also be in the worst liberal movies list, but I could never bring myself to watch such filth even to describe why it's so bad. Shobson20 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

Please do not remove any of my atheism related articles

DouglasA, please do not remove any of my atheism related articles. For example, you deleted my Jamila Bey article which I restored.

Conservapedia's atheism article receives over 10,000 page views a month (See: Conservapedia:Atheism articles statistics). And one of the reasons this is happening is that Conservapedia has over 1,900 atheism-related articles.

You wrote in your edit summary: "Non-encyclopedic: Liberal nonsense". There was nothing , non-encyclopedic, liberal or nonsensical about that article. Conservative (talk) 12:34, September 21, 2022 (EDT)