Difference between revisions of "User talk:EvanW"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Undo revision 730011 by EDknobPOOR (Talk) rvv)
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Cat Cora ==
 
−
It's correct now because you changed it from her doing badly because she is gay to her marrying her partner. Plus, I don't think this person warrants inclusion. Trust me, Alphak is a vandal. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:08, 15 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
:Agreed; he probably is.  But, I prefer keeping real information [[ad hominem|even if vandals add it]].  Notability is another matter, though - I know Wikipedia's policy, but does Conservapedia have one?  It doesn't seem to be in the Commandments or Guidelines.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:15, 15 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
::Understand that I reverted the first edit which is exactly the type of vandalism we get here. While I am not the most knowledgeable on this site yet on the yeas or neas I have seen celebrity articles deleted, even A-listers. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 23:33, 15 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
:::Great question; I think we need to discuss notability.  I just [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Notability_policy.3F|asked Andy]].
 
  
−
*Our policy is to not identify a person as a Homosexual unless that is their primary notriety. In this case, Cat Cora is notable for being a celebrity chef, not a Gay activist. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small>/Admin</small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Sure; I'm fine with that.  I really don't have the least idea who she is, but I just dove in when [[User:Ameda]] and a probable vandal were re-re-reverting each other to point out that Cat Cora exists.  I don't care about the article in the least. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:09, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:::Yes, just as I figured.  It was the vandal who added the over-the-top portion. No worries, just wanted everyone to be clear about that, is all. Glad you have stuck around! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small>/Admin</small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 20:14, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Great case description ==
 
−
 
−
Great case description (Bailey)!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 16 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
==Redirect==
 
−
 
−
Thanks for [[Indians]] - those are the ones [[Michael Crichton]] was talking about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:37, 17 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Leaving ==
 
−
 
−
Let me just address some of your concerns:
 
−
 
−
:::''It seems to me that this encyclopedia is a very, very long way from being comprehensive;''
 
−
 
−
You're right - that's precisely why you should stay and help us improve it!
 
−
 
−
:::''and the small number of non-vandalizing users makes me think that it will not catch up for a long while.''
 
−
 
−
It will take a while, if editors leave because they think it will take a while.  This is a self-fulfilling prophecy!
 
−
 
−
:::''In addition, the several recent departures of prominent editors (e.g. [[User:Ksorenson]], [[User:MarkGall]], [[User:PatrickD]]) have caused me to rethink where this project seems to be going.''
 
−
 
−
KSorenson's reaction to certain news stories indicate she may have always intended to leave.  I've spoken to MarkGall in private, and he very well may be coming back at some time.  The simple fact is, people come and people go, but these particular editors have only been here for a few months and their departure hardly signals the death knell for Conservapedia. 
 
−
 
−
:::''Conservapedia has noble goals, but I am no longer sure that participating in it is the way God wants me to use my time.''
 
−
 
−
If you agree with the goals of Conservapedia, I implore you to stay and help us build this project. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 22:40, 18 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
==Software naming conventions==
 
−
 
−
Hi, Evan. Would you like to help me come up with a [[naming convention]] for our [[computer software]] articles? I've written an article on restarting the [[Vista print spooler]], and I've moved [[Windows]] and [[Vista]]. What are your thoughts? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:17, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Sure; I'll be thinking about it.  Just from a quick scan, we've got some inconsistency:  [[C programming language]] but [[Java]] and [[Python]].  (Hey, what about the snakes and island?)  I'd lobby for one consistency:  either "Name (type)" such as "Windows (operating system)" or "Name type" such as "Windows operating system".  "Name" breaks down too fast against Java (island), Python (snake), and Windows (architectural).  "Brand Name" breaks down against C and Python, which don't have a company behind them.  I'll be thinking more later today.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:25, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:[[Python]] moved to [[Python (programming language)]], and other moves and redirects also done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:35, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Okay, here I am back.  Sorry about the wait; I'm afraid I'd forgotten about the project.  After a lot of thought, I'm afraid we'll need to just go with "Name" in general, or "Name (type)" in case of confusion.  We can't always have "Name (type)"; does anyone here really want "Office (office suite)" or "Microsoft Office (office suite)"?  You could say that "Microsoft Office" is an example of "Brand Name", but we just as clearly want "SQL" and not "IBM SQL".  If you really, really want consistency, I suppose that "Name (type)" could work for everything without a brand, but that would be inconsistent with the rest of CP.  Even though we need [[Georgia (country)]], we don't force consistency with "Russia (country)" or "Germany (country)".
 
−
::So, my suggestion:  "Name" in general ("SQL", "BASIC", "Macintosh"), with brand when it's a recognized part (ok, I know I'm being vague here, but you get the picture with "Windows Vista" and "Microsoft Office") and "Name (type)" only when we've got an article on another thing with that name ("Python (snake)", "C (letter of alphabet)").  I think that last caveat is a good way of distinguishing when the other thing with that name is significant enough to bump the programming concept to a disambiguating part of name.
 
−
::Again, I'm sorry I'm so late getting back to you.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:It's a bit confusing, what you've said. There's nothing ambiguous about [[Microsoft Office]]; hence, no need for a type in parenthesis.
 
−
 
−
:When the issue of distinguishing between similar article titles first came up at Wikipedia, it was quickly decided that we '''omit''' the type whenever possible.
 
−
 
−
:Or is that what you were saying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:49, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
::Yes, that's what I was saying.  In general, just "Name" (sometimes the brand is part of the name); put "Name (type)" only when we already have an article on another thing with that name. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:52, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
==About the Messianic Prophesy article==
 
−
 
−
The article is not a copy of Josh McDowell's book, it is taken from a Roman Catholic Israeli site. I think that I can work on it some, but there is a problem in just how far I can go. The actual Scripture verses that are used are well known and appears almost everywhere. Of course, the wording of the Scriptures cannot be tampered with. Lesser known is much of the quotes of the Commentary - taken from the Rabbinical literature. But these, too, can't be changed. Yet, I feel that they should not be left out. I have added one or two of my own commentary, but I decided to leave all the rest of the non citation commentary as is because to make changes, could only be superficial and stylistic. I'll try to do some, though, and perhaps delete some commentary, as well, and afterwards, you take a look, and perhaps you can do more revamping. The Bible Quote templates add a lot to it!Bert Schlossberg 11:42, 4 December 2009 (EST) [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 11:47, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
EvanW, I don't know what to do. I've edited out the pictures, and edited in my commentary for "Jesus is God" (below) but all the commentary of the original besides being excellent is concise having the quotes from the rabbinic sources embedded within. To edit further, I could only artificially seek for synonymns - "also" for "too", and the likes. You have already changed the order. What to do?
 
−
 
−
Commentary:
 
−
 
−
"Hebrew is a contextual language - that is relatively few words but each word having a variety of meanings. This requires knowledge of the literature, and literatures - that is, knowledge of the context to determine the precise meaning. Biblical Hebrew has a help in this, though, and that is "signs" (t'amey Hamikr'a) that accompany the text, usually above the letters, sometimes to the side, which are divided into two main categories - conjunctive and disjuctive. The conjunctive tie two words together, the disjuctive indicate that the words are separate in thought. These two categories of signs also serve as punctuation - full stop (period), semi-stop (coma),and even thought groupings. they were written down by the Masoretes of the 5th cent A.D., that is the people that carried on the earlier tradition of how things were understood. Masoret=tradition. Thus, In Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew words themselves can bear the meaning "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor of the Mighty God..." or His name shall be called " Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God...". But the T'amey Hamikr'a decide the case. Between "Counsellor" and Mighty God" there is a disjunctive. Therefore His name shall be called Counsellor, the Mighty God..." is correct - according to the understanding that the Masoretes received." [[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 23:54, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:Ahh, editing.  There're any number of ways to rephrase sentences, et cetera...  I think it'd be far shorter to point you to some of [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Messianic_Prophecies&diff=727088&oldid=726850 what I've done] on the article than to explain.  Basically, I try to edit whole paragraphs rather than simple sentences, finding other ways to convey the same thoughts (usually shorter, at that!)  If you think you've got ideas, great!  If not, then I'm sure I or someone else will find time to do it.  It's an intriguing and profitable field of study!  And thank you for your extra info on the Hebrew punctuation; it really helps. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 00:00, 5 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Thanks! ==
 
−
 
−
Thanks for your effort at [[Fall of man]]. That's precisely what I was looking for. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 23:05, 11 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:You're welcome.  I'm glad I could help, and thank you for pointing out that the article needed references.  If you have any more questions about Bible references, I definitely hope you can get them answered.  If I'm around, I'll do my best. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 23:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
== Advice on speedy deletion ==
 
−
 
−
Hi, I was just doing some housekeeping and adding all articles with deletion discussions to [[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion]]. But there remain lots of pages with deletion templates, but no corresponding discussion. Some seem rather obvious deletion candidates: Empty categories, redirects to deleted articles, almost empty pages, and a user page of a blocked user or two. I'm pretty new to Conservapedia, so I thought I'd ask before making a mistake and creating unnecessary work: Can those obvious candidates all be tagged for [[:Template:Db|speedy deletion]], or if not, when is speedy deletion appropriate and when is a deletion discussion required? Thanks in advance, [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 11:45, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
−
:I'm only a month older here than you, and I don't have a clue how the deletion process works.  But, I wouldn't see why anyone would want to keep any of those (other than maybe the userpages, as a historical record.)  Sorry I couldn't help. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:24, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
::Sorry, I took you for an admin and didn't check. I'll probably make sure and ask someone else before I start to make a mess. Anyway, thanks for the opinion. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 12:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 
−
:::Oh, boy!  First time I get mistaken for an admin - how exciting! :)  Unfortunately, I don't think it'll be true for a while...--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 12:38, 12 December 2009 (EST)
 

Revision as of 18:01, December 12, 2009

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:EvanW&oldid=730031"