4,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 169:
Line 169: − + Line 180:
Line 180: − + − + Line 285:
Line 285: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
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 ==
* 19 References
* 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)
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)