| Line 558: |
Line 558: |
| | | | |
| | *One of their IP's traced to Turkey, the other to Ameritech here. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT) | | *One of their IP's traced to Turkey, the other to Ameritech here. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | == Hello == |
| | + | |
| | + | I am new to conservapedia after being unwelcomed for writing NPOV content that showed that in the creation-evolution controversy, the scientists are not always the good guys. I have added some content that was rejected elsewhere. I believe my work will be more appreciated here, or at least that is my hope. Please stop by my talk page and say hello. I added the article [[Smithsonian Controversy]], and have also asked that a sentence be added to the article on [[Intelligent Design]]. See its talk page. Also, said talk page appeared to be vandalized, and I reverted it. I assume this is okay, but if it was not, feel free to let me know more about what contributors are and are not allowed to do. Thanks again. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:48, 6 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : I noticed your entry on the [[Smithsonian Controversy]] earlier and reread it now. It's a great start. There are a few opinions that might be trimmed but basically it's a terrific addition. God bless you and please do more!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | :Aschlafly, are you the sheriff in these here parts?-[[User:FestinaLente|FestinaLente]] 23:33, 6 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::Thanks Aschlafly. Is it the opinion section, or Ms. Scott's opinions. Not sure if you know about Ms. Scott, but she is a ravid evolutionist. The opinion section could go, but I would argue for expanding Ms. Scott's opinions, per the sources, as it shows the true colors of the National Center for Science Education. If you know anybody with an interest in such articles, let me know, I'd like to collaborate. My strong suit is finding material and technical stuff, and I am very open to help with regard to organization and presentation. Also, is there a way to get the <nowiki><ref>{{harvnb|Last|Year|Page}}</ref></nowiki> template here? I had to do a work around for the [[Smithsonian Controversy]] article. Thanks again. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 00:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Quotes are fine, so Ms. Scott's opinions are excellent. No, I was merely referring to what looked like your opinion. Don't worry about it. Others will edit it if they think it is a problem. But all quotes and referenced material will remain. It's a terrific entry on a very important controversy, and I learned much from it. |
| | + | |
| | + | : I'll get some folks smarter than I to help you with your wiki issue. You'll have an answer on that tonight or tomorrow. Thanks and God bless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | A question for Andy, and a response of sorts to HeartOfGold. |
| | + | * Question: We are not allowed to copy articles for Wikipedia, but are we able to copy templates? We do already have a few that have been copied from Wikipedia. |
| | + | |
| | + | : Only expressive material can be copyrighted. If a template is simple and non-expressive, then there is no copyright issue. But if it's expressive, then we need to put it in our own words. |
| | + | |
| | + | * [[user:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] started developing a [[User:All Fish Welcome/Writing Guide|writing guide]] for Conservapedia, including a recommendation for reference articles. I was hoping that when he has completed it, we would develop some templates to go with it. But most editors here seem so interested in writing their own articles or questioning others' articles that they neglect helping to develop good practices such as this, and I'm figuring he hasn't had enough encouragement to keep at it. |
| | + | :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : This is a good idea and let's publicize it more, and hope more people follow it once it's done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==I am not a sysop== |
| | + | so I cannot ban people for things like this: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Horatio_Nelson&diff=147398&oldid=147397] [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | ::Thank you for reverting vandalism on my page. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | :::Just another piece of evidence for my case to be a sysop: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Mostlinked] see 40 [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == Desysoping inactive users == |
| | + | |
| | + | try |
| | + | *[[User:ChrisS]] |
| | + | *[[User:Sarah B]] |
| | + | *[[User:PhilipB]] |
| | + | *[[User:Conservapedia Webmaster]] (same user as [[User:CPWebmaster]]) |
| | + | *[[User:NSmyth]] (not totaly inactive, but very few recent contribs) |
| | + | *[[User:AustinM]] |
| | + | ==Conservative and abuse== |
| | + | Andy, I would like to make a formal complaint about the block that User:Conservative performed on my account based on the evidence that he blocked due to ideological differences, did not provide a warning as to the action I was performing that was an issue, not allowing the sysops to make changes based on suggestions on the talk page, and by not providing an opportunity for discussion on the issue. He was also in direct violation of commandments 1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. 2. Always cite and give credit to your sources,[1] even if in the public domain. (Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.) 5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. |
| | + | |
| | + | This issue stems from the Astronomy page and his addition of this line |
| | + | |
| | + | The theory of evolution has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[2] |
| | + | [2]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html |
| | + | |
| | + | The citation does not support his edit, thus he violated Commandment 1 (Not true or verifiable), 2 (Source did not correlate to the statement) 5 (this is his personal opinion shown countless times in past edits and articles). |
| | + | |
| | + | Upon seeing this edit I notified User:Conservative on the Astronomy talk page |
| | + | |
| | + | How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--TimS 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | There is a need for conservative views at Conservapedia. YEC is very conservative. Conservative 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--TimS 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--TimS 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.Conservative 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--TimS 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | With nothing further said for Conservative’s defense of his edit I edited the page: |
| | + | |
| | + | 08:24, 4 May 2007 Tims (Talk | contribs) (→Young Earth Creationism View - TOE has nothing to do with this page nor does any of the cites have anything to relate TOE with Astronomy.) |
| | + | |
| | + | My initial revert was from this: |
| | + | |
| | + | The theory of evolution has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[2] Young earth creationist scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that materialistic explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.[3][4] For example, these scientists cite various examples from the scientific literature in order to demonstrate that materialistic ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power in regards to various astronomical bodies: |
| | + | |
| | + | http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html |
| | + | |
| | + | To this http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Astronomy&diff=142804&oldid=142790: |
| | + | Young earth creationist scientists believe that materialistic explanations of the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.[2][3] For example, these scientists cite various examples from the scientific literature in order to demonstrate that materialistic ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power in regards to various astronomical bodies: |
| | + | After that time the following edits happed on the page: |
| | + | |
| | + | 14:36, 4 May 2007 Mtur (Talk | contribs) (→Young Earth Creationism View - When looked at the complete articles, the examples given are not in line with the quotes. Removing sections. See talk page for context and background.) |
| | + | 16:18, 4 May 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) |
| | + | 16:18, 4 May 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) m (Protected "Astronomy": edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) |
| | + | 01:05, 5 May 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) m (Unprotected "Astronomy": will try leaving it unprotected again. please see andy's comment on talk page) |
| | + | |
| | + | I checked the page and noticed that my edit had been altered, but no notice on the talk page for the alteration, so I edited again: |
| | + | |
| | + | 07:14, 5 May 2007 Tims (Talk | contribs) (TOE has nothing to do with astronomy, stop using this as a soap box Conservative. Keep to the facts or provide a citation that shows your claim.) |
| | + | |
| | + | My second revert was from this http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Astronomy&diff=144396&oldid=144296: |
| | + | The theory of evolution has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[2] Young earth creationist scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that materialistic explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.[3][4] For example, these scientists cite various examples from the scientific literature in order to demonstrate that materialistic ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power in regards to various astronomical bodies: |
| | + | To this: |
| | + | Young earth creationist scientists believe that materialistic explanations of the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.[2][3] For example, these scientists cite various examples from the scientific literature in order to demonstrate that materialistic ideas in astronomy have failed to have any explanatory power in regards to various astronomical bodies: |
| | + | To which Conservative responded with this: |
| | + | |
| | + | 22:01, 5 May 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Tims (Talk); changed back to last version by Conservative) |
| | + | |
| | + | And this: |
| | + | |
| | + | 22:02, 5 May 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked "Tims (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (inappropriate behavior ) |
| | + | No where on my talk page, Astronomy talk page, Conservative talk page and Conservapedia’s Abuse page was there any mention as to what the inappropriate behavior was or what violation if any I had committed. |
| | + | I hope that this is not accepted behavior of sysops on Conservapedia, to discipline based on ideological differences and breaking the commandments that they are suppose to be enforcing. If you agree with Conservative’s position please inform me on what grounds so as I will not violate them in the future.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ==Was it really that unproductive?== |
| | + | I don't think it was a violation of anything in particular. I would enjoy some kind of response, but I imagine this will be deleted too. To be clear, I am not trying to pick a fight, but Spyder and I had a legitimate issue. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Save it for another day. This habit of liberals continuing to challenge and discuss after an obvious and clear decision has been made needs to stop. I said that on the page but people continued to ignore it. |
| | + | |
| | + | : If you want to start another page that does not violate our [[rules]], then you can continue the debate there. But I can't imagine anything productive resulting from it, and I would expect it to inevitably violate our rules also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::Again, I am serious and in no way trying to be flippant (despite Spyder's nickname) but is the subject of the debate off-limits, or your decision to halt debate what bothered you? I just want to be clear if I started a debate page? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I think the subject is relevant and highly probative, but from what I've seen here before, I don't think there's any condition under which Aschlafly will ever consider that subject of debate amenable to anything other than a quick ban, followed by a deletion, no matter how relevant it may be. And I like you Flippin... don't sign your death warrant.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | ::(slowly backs out of the room. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)) |
| | + | |
| | + | :Ed Poor has implied that if people are intelligent and know that the bosses of the site really don't want something approached in a particular way, then perhaps they should move on and find another topic, or a different, more acceptable way to approach their topic of choice. Seems like a good idea here, rather than getting into a fight with someone who has a bigger gun. IMO.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 16:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | : Folks if you disagree with our [[rule]] against gossip, then discuss it on the talk page for the rules. Others have applied that rule before to other entries, such as to an early entry about the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]]. There have been other examples also. This is an educational resource, not the National Enquirer. Now please take your discussion elsewhere, as I invoke our longstanding rule that a man's talk page is his castle. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I understand the issue is closed, Aschlafly, but I have a related question. The issue of Dickinson College on the page [[John E. Jones III]] seems to me to be "gossip" as well. Could you clearly delineate what is and is not gossip for me so I can avoid it, please? I have preemptively deleted the section, interpreting your rule, but if you find that was incorrect, feel free to revert.-'''Speak[http://www.c |
| | + | |
| | + | : Don't you have access to a dictionary??? The definition is clear enough, and public criticism of someone's public speech is obviously not gossip.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | I still don't understand - both seem "public" to my understanding - but I understand that you don't want to discuss this further on your page, so where I'm unsure, I'll try to avoid the issue altogether. But, if you want to clarify your meaning further, I would be happy if you could help me on my talk page.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | == John Schlafly == |
| | + | |
| | + | Why is the discussion page deleted and protected without having the article deleted and protected too? --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 16:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | :''see above'' |
| | + | |
| | + | :Maybe the entry will deleted at some point in the future. I'm indifferent to it. But we have many other entries already proposed for deletion to consider first (a list of about 20 entries, I think), so it's time to move on to more pressing issues. Now please see my reply two comments above my talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT) |