4,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 123:
Line 123: − I agree! Delete it!! Line 170:
Line 169: − + Line 181:
Line 180: − + − + Line 234:
Line 233: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I am also submitting the article on [[homosexuality]] for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may ''be'' homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== What happened to my request? ==
== What happened to my request? ==
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]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code></sup> 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]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code></sup> 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]] <sup>[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]</sup> 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop</sup> 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</code></sup> 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:So did I. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<sup><code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code></sup> 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 ==
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)
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 ==
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>
== Evolution ==
A first stab at proposed changes to the [[theory of evolution]] page.
The '''theory of evolution''' is a term primarily used to describe two different concepts:
* The idea that organisms change over many generations through the process of [[variation]] and [[natural selection]]
* The idea that all life on Earth is descended from a single protocell, and differentiated into its various forms solely through the processes of random variation and natural selection.
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.
== Mechanisms of evolution ==
The following mechanisms are proposed for the processes of evolution:
=== Origin of life ===
* [[Metabolism world hypothesis]]: the hypothesis that life originated with a spontaneous non-genetic metabolica cycle, and later evolved into cells;
* [[RNA world hypothesis]]: the hypothesis that life originated with RNA, which had the capacity to act both as gene and enzyme;
=== Variation ===
* [[Random mutation]]: random changes in the genetic code;
* [[Recombination]]: targetted shifts in large sections of the genetic code, primarily through [[sexual reproduction]]
=== Selection ===
* [[Natural selection]]: the removal of less adapted lifeforms from the environment
* [[Genetic drift]]: the gradual elimination of genetic variation from a gene pool through [[stochiastic]] functions;
[[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
== Minor suggestion for several locked articles ==
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]]:
* 1 Mutations and the Life Sciences in General
* 2 Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process
* 3 Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information
* 4 Evolutionary theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation
* 5 Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms
* 6 The Fossil Record and the Evolutionary Position
* 7 Paleoanthropology
* 8 Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
* 9 Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position
* 10 Statements of Design
* 11 Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals
* 12 Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside of Biology
* 13 Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution
* 14 Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position
* 15 Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution
* 16 Further Reading (including free on-line versions)
* 17 See also
* 18 External Links
* 19 References
All this capitalization is difficult to read and, in my opinion looks rather awkward in the table of contents. Please consider changing these headings. Thank you. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 12:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:They are titles, so I vote to capitalize them. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]<sup>[[User talk:SharonS|Talk]]</sup> 21:35, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::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)
== Social effects of the theory of evolution ==
Please consider putthing this under the control of the CPanel. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 17:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
==Missing important information==
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)
==Dead-End Page==
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)
==Delete Day of the Year pages==
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)
==Editorial Policy Question==
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><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 09:25, 20 October 2007 (EDT)