User talk:JamesWilson/ArchiveSeptOctNov2011
Coming back?
Is this a permanent retirement, or do you plan on returning? This encyclopedia needs you!--MorrisF 15:11, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
- I'll return, I suppose. Some of my articles are unfinished anyway.--James Wilson 16:58, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
Elvis
Hey, are you planning to list each movie in the Presley article? It might be a good idea to create a sub-article for his movies where you can expand upon them, or create links in the filmography table and do a page for each movie. That will keep the bio page concise and give you room to write more about the movies. Just a thought. --SharonW 16:12, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
- Done.--James Wilson 22:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
OWS Revert
Curious as to why you undid my edit? I explained my reasoning in my blip and on the talk page. Ayzmo 00:18, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Recent block
Arrswipe is an inappropriate username. Shouldn't permaban be used? ~ JonG ~ 13:04, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
- Gotcha. Thanks!--James Wilson 13:24, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
Old Earth
You stated on MandyC's talk page that this site doesn't condone old earth geology. I thought the site allowed old earth creationism - please show me where it states that YEC is the only accepted stance here. Thanks! --SharonW 17:46, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- I did a thorough search of policy and couldn't find a place where OEC was explicitly disallowed. I was under the understanding that YEC was preferred given the science articles here, such as Dinosaur.--James Wilson 17:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- Saying something is preferred is a lot different than saying something isn't condoned.--SharonW 18:01, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- True, I should have watched the wording. However, that article was written to include examples against an old earth.--James Wilson 18:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- Saying something is preferred is a lot different than saying something isn't condoned.--SharonW 18:01, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Undoing edits on other people's talk pages
Shouldn't Mandy be the one to decide what goes on her talk page or not? She might have wanted to reply. ScottDG 18:53, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- It was blatant trolling and didn't belong.--James Wilson 18:55, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- I have no problem with it being removed. I hadn't noticed it or I'd have done it myself. Thanks James! --MandyC 19:01, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Great blocks and reverts!
Great blocks and reverts tonight!--Andy Schlafly 21:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
- Thanks!--James Wilson 21:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Reverting my edits on the elections article?
Why? ScottDG 19:22, 6 November 2011 (EST)
- They don't match the rest of the article.--James Wilson 19:26, 6 November 2011 (EST)
- In what way? They pint ot some cons, as does the rest of the article. ScottDG 19:31, 6 November 2011 (EST)
- I didn't do that reversion, but I agree with it because the two negative comments about Bush and Cain were almost entirely opinion.--Andy Schlafly 19:45, 6 November 2011 (EST)
- In what way? They pint ot some cons, as does the rest of the article. ScottDG 19:31, 6 November 2011 (EST)
My articles
I caught your comment about my articles. Which ones might they be? Were they the Atlas Shrugged series?--TerryHTalk 09:15, 12 November 2011 (EST)
- Yes, those were the ones I were referring to. I caught one in the Recent Changes and thought it was superb.--James Wilson 09:21, 12 November 2011 (EST)
Blocking for username violations
Just a note, we typically don't block for username anymore unless the username is blatantly bad, like F***YouAndy, YourMom, DMoron, or something of that nature. We're not senior admins; we should leave anything that isn't a blatant violation of the Commandments to the senior administrators. DMorris 13:23, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- Gotcha. Thanks!--James Wilson 13:25, 16 November 2011 (EST)
the rationale behind the reversal of your block
I just posted this on Andy Schlafly's talk page:
Andy,
Here are the results of the Blocking Policy Improvement Panel:
"Username Policy-The site would accept inoffensive pseudonyms as usernames, since some may not want to give out their real names and some users still may be in secondary school, and would not be allowed to share their name on the Web. Names like "Farmer" or that kind of username would be acceptable. An obviously vulgar name (expletives, mocking another editor, insulting Conservapedia or anyone or anything else for that matter) would still result in a block."[1]
The new editor User:Libertyfree2000 was just blocked due to their username. I unblocked this person.
The current blocking policy is that first name and last initial is optional as a choice for a username.
I understand that blocking a bunch of new users who register back to back to vandalize makes sense. But that has nothing to do with their username.
I also understand that silly or foul names should be blocked.
Right now, Conservapedia does not have a coherent blocking policy. As a conservative website, Conservapedia should have a coherent blocking policy in terms of user names. It currently doesn't. Conservatives believe in law and order. Law and order is based on sound rules being applied consistently/fairly. This should be easy to fix - especially since Conservapedia does not have a super abundance of editors. Can Conservapedia make it a policy to tell new blockers to only block in the case of silly or foul usernames instead of being capricious?
Your feedback would be appreciated. Conservative 14:31, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- Not a problem, Conservative. Your policy is decent, as long as the names aren't obviously frivolous or inappropriate. It was just Conservapedia's current policy that prefers users sign up under a form of their real name. However, the reversal is fine and dandy, and I hope your policy goes through. Thanks for the good will!--James Wilson 19:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE
Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:08, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- No problem. I'll help out, Conservative.--James Wilson 18:54, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Carlrogers
A warning is sufficient for violating the commandments which he has not read. --Jpatt 21:53, 16 November 2011 (EST)
- OK.--James Wilson 22:03, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Hello Mr. Wilson... I will start off by saying that I understand this wiki's goal of making partially-subjective articles with obviously stereotypical Christian biases involved with each article. I would just like to say that, as a gay Christian, I was very offended by your slur of close-minded, unreasonable articles about gay people and their, "Evil plot to make everybody gay." Please read my comment here (http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Mystery:Why_do_people_choose_homosexuality%3F) with consideration and respect. Thank you. --Bocaj910 23:05, 17 November 2011 (EST)