User talk:Jimmy

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Conservapedia's Original Source Project
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, Jimmy, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Jimmy!

User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Take a better look to the the article Gettysburg Address. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment was NOT clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

You started writing:

The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain the phrase attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.

And the phrase was: "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

That phrase was in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: "under God".

I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)