Changes

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification ==

== Submitting <nowiki>[[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]]</nowiki> for official ratification ==

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]^{<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code>} 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]^{<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code>} 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== HELLO?  HELLO? ==

== HELLO?  HELLO? ==

Is there anybody in there?  I posted two questions above and have received no response.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] ^{[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]} 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there anybody in there?  I posted two questions above and have received no response.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] ^{Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop} 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]^{<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code>} 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]^{<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code>} 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory ==

== I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory ==

:Glad you think that, but it's still not a good definition. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font>^{<font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font>} 01:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Glad you think that, but it's still not a good definition. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font>^{<font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font>} 01:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOP ColinR made a ideological edit to the [[astronomy]] article. ==

== Thank you indeed ==

SYSOP ColinR made a ideological edit to the [[astronomy]] article.  I deleted the material that stated that is was a fact that the universe was billions of years old in the [[Astronomy]] article as it is not a fact and breaks a conservapedia rule. I put in the young earth creationists views and nowhere did I state they were fact.  Thus, I complied with the conservapedia commandments. Sysop ColinR removed the young earth creationist material and put in the "it is a fact that the universe is old" material.  Therefore, I charge ColinR with breaking a conservapedia commandment and committing a ideaological edit.  I wish the conservapedia panel to render a decision on this matter and thus avoid a edit war.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

 

 

 

== Request: Define the audience, and comment on articles written at too high/low a level ==

I'd like the panel to come up with some statement of the age level we should be keeping in mind as the audience for Conservapedia, and I'd like the panel (and only the panel) to indicate... in some gentle way... articles that are written at too high or too low a level.

 

I'm thinking high-school-plus-or-minus two years (i.e. junior high school through college sophomore). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

 

::Please don't define it in terms that only an American would understand.  We don't have "junior high schools" here, and I think "college" has a different meaning.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Apologies. I was thinking of "high school" as the range User:Fox delineated below. A college sophomore would be twenty. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

 

::The 1930’s saw the formation of an Editorial Advisory Board composed of distinguished educators. The Board launched an analysis of typical school curriculums, which provided the editors with data on the subjects being studied in all grades from kindergarten to high school. Today, World Book editors continue to develop content that meets curriculum needs.

 

:I would think that it would be a mistake remove valid material just because it is too detailed, too technical, or written for too advanced an audience. It is also hard to ''adjust'' material down to a very different age group.

:I'm thinking that perhaps an article that is too advanced might be ''moved'' from [[XYZ]] to [[XYZ (advanced)]], and [[XYZ]] be started with a template requesting a more elementary article, and of course a "see also" section linking to [[XYZ (advanced)]].

:Or something like that. Don't delete anything, but make it clear that Conservapedia has a requirement for an (essentially new) elementary article on the same topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just a thought, not a suggestion per se: I seem to recall seeing a comment from Ed Poor - I will try to find the exact quote asap - which stuck in my mind as a sensible observation. It was along the lines of, "A reader shouldn't have to go away and consult another textbook in order to be able to understand an article." [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT) Added: To clarify, it was at [[Talk:Gene expression]] and the associated edit summaries in the history. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 06:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

 

:::Advanced and simplified articles would be one way to go.  Another would be to have a simplified summary at the start of a more-advanced article.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

 

 

 

A situation has come up on [[Template:Christianity]] as regards whether or not [[Mormons]] are Christians. I have reverted the page to its original form and will keep it frozen pending a decision. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. <small>Site Sheriff(Sysop)</small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:44, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

 

 

Adolf Hitler's name is spelt differently in the same paragraph. (Adolph and Adolf) The correct spelling is Adolf. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Luojie|Luojie]]</small>

 

 

 

 

While there is no controversy regarding the truth of the theory of evolution in the first sense, there is a great deal of public controversy regarding its truth in the second sense.  Specifically, [[creationism]] is an alternate viewpoint which holds that all life is ''not'' related, and life did ''not'' develop entirely by the processes of variation and natural selection; rather, a Creator designed and created life in a number of ''different'', ''distinct'', and ''unrelated'' forms, and endowed that life with the capacity to adapt to a changing environment through the processes of variation and natural selection.

 

 

 

 

I've noticed that many of the locked articles tend to capitalize nearly every word in the headings of an article. Here is an example from [[Theory of Evolution]]:

    * 11 Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals

 

::I think they're more like headings, not titles. If each one were the title of a book, I'd understand. Look any other encyclopedia's subdivisions. Does anyone else capitalize (nearly) every word? It just looks weird to me. I know you don't like being compared to Wikipedia, but ''content aside'', they do tend to have nice formatting on most of the articles. A quick check on a few random articles from Encyclopedia Britannica also shows no such over-capitalization. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:53, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

 

 

Please consider putthing this under the control of the CPanel.  [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

 

I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

 

 

I think that the dead-end pages list should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

 

 

We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. They are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.[[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 18:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

 

 

I've been trying to discuss potential edits to the [[Communism]] page, and have run into [[User:RobSmith]], who has twice, in short order, threatened the "BanHammer," both of which appear to me to be absurdly inappropriate.  As I think is apparent from a review of the commentary, both threats were (1) based on a completely unjustifiable characterization of my points; and (2) premature, even had I been saying what I was accused of saying, since, surely, the first response to bad ideas should be to explain why they are bad.  Only when someone reveals themselves to be unreasonable and uninterested in participating in an intelligent exchange does it make sense to censor them, I would think.  Frankly, I'm shocked by the juvenile conduct of RobSmith, and find it to be an embarrassment to me, as a conservative.  I believe the decision to grant this individual authority to threaten the "banhammer" should be reviewed. {{unsigned|QBeam}} 11:45, 19 October 2007

 

*The Panel's page isn't the place for this type of complaint. You should be using [[Conservapedia:Desk]] or [[User talk:Aschlafly]].  Thanks. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font>^{<font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font>} 09:25, 20 October 2007 (EDT)