User talk:JoshuaZ

I find that it's fun working on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that's at such an early stage that it's still easy to make changes and additions, confident that they are actually improvements. Dpbsmith 19:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Any Idea why you can't see the references at the bottom of the examples of bias page? --TimSvendsen 00:20, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Good job on the Creationism page. PhilipB 11:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Why do you and Dpbsmith keep refering to "Middle Schoolers"? and what does that have to do with any debate? --TimSvendsen 11:22, 14 February 2007 (EST)

A: Actually conservapedia was not started to "have a wiki that Christian homeschooled students could edit without them being exposed to anything their parents didn't want them exposed to." It was started to have an encyclopedic website (it actually didn't start as a wiki) that did not have the liberal bias of wikipedia. B: The Users of Conservapedia are not limited to the students of A Schlafly, and most of the students are highschoolers. --TimSvendsen 11:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)

There may been some miscommunication here then. For example, Conservapedia:About mentions it starting as "as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students" and my impression was that part of the reason for the third Conservapedia commandment was due to the presence of such students. It is possible that I have been misinformed about their general age. JoshuaZ 11:47, 14 February 2007 (EST)

It was my mistake. The original article in Wikipedia used the word "teenagers." I'm not sure how I got the notion that it was middle-school age, rather than high school. Dpbsmith 12:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

"woefully inaccurate"

If you think certain articles are "woefully inaccurate on Conservapedia" by all means improve them. We do not want to scare people from editing this site as Wikipedia does. Please just try to keep your edits neutral... if you want to debate or discuss something then post it in the pages "Talk" page or make a debate topic. thanks - PhilipB 09:37, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Real numbers

Despite my snarky edit comment, I'd welcome your giving this a look. I'm trying to make it more understandable to an audience of non-college-math-majors without I hope saying anything terribly inaccurate.

Is there any name for the logical and historical progression by which you start with positive integers, add zero out of a desire to solve the equation n + x = n, add the negative numbers out of desire to close the um, set, field, whazzit under subtraction, add the fractions out of a desire to close it with respect to division, add the irrationals and transcendentals out of a desire to close it with respect to (what?) (to duplicate the cube?) (to get a one-to-one correspondence with the points on a line?), add the imaginaries and complex numbers out of a desire to have solutions for all polynomials?

And where, exactly, do the infinities fit in _in mathematics?_ I love how IEEE-784 floating-point arithmetic handles them; it has +INF and -INF which do what I expect, and NaN (Not a Number) which also up where I expect it... 1/0 = +INF, but 0/0 = NaN, not INF. INF and -INF participate happily in further operations. INF + 42 yields INF, and so forth. INF + INF yields INF. However, INF - INF, or INF + (-INF) yield NaN. There must be something like this in mathematics, but they weren't teaching it when I was learning it. Dpbsmith 19:10, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Talk:Homosexuality

See my own remarks on the sentence containing the phrase "extremely clear." (As you can see, I personally would have settled for dropping the word "extremely.") Dpbsmith 20:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

CreationWiki and quotes and Theory of Evolution article

Thanks for your concern, however, I did not first read the quotes from CreationWiki. So there are no copyright issues. However, I did find the extensive list of CreationWiki quotes on the fossil record useful to Conservapedians so I did include a appropriate link to that material. Conservative 22:44, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

I put sources. Two of my original sources were not easily availiable (lots of websites with the same quote and a defunct website) so I used the CreationWiki as a source since the publication info was extensive so readers can easily find the quotes original sources. Conservative 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Re: Additional commentary on the Theory of Evolution talk page

Two commnents:

1. I believe I did respond adequately previously.

2. I have some time sensitive matters I have to attend so further commentary may not becoming soon should I change my mind regarding this matter.

Conservative 23:49, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

I read the additional commentary to the talk page and I believe I can respond to your comments quickly. 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

I was hoping to respond to your criticism quickly but unfortunately I have to go. Conservative 00:00, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Thanks for the support

I was about to send a message myself, but saw that you had beaten me to it. --Twoflower 09:24, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Somehow however, I have the feeling that we will not accomplish much here...--Twoflower 03:33, 1 March 2007 (EST)

YEC article

I saw your Young Earth Creationism (YEC) article. You created a section in the article for scientists criticisms of the YEC position but you failed to create material in the article which gave scientists arguments for a young earth. Conservative 09:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Blocked

It seems User:Conservative unilaterallty blocked you for 3 months(!), and without even the courtesy of a warning or an opportunity to address whatever he found objectionable. His doing so strikes me as a conflict of interest since you two were apparently debating that article's direction. Also, there is absolutely no infraction worthy of a block, not to mention one for 3 months, on your part that I can find. Since it's so clearly an abuse of his admin privileges I'm confident the management here, particularly User:Aschlafly, won't stand for this sort of abuse of power. I hope this incident isn't indicative of how simple content disputes will be handled here and I look forward to soon seeing your sensible contributions and comments here again. Harpie snark 13:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

RE: citation

You wrote: In regard to [1], that amounts to changing the citation which is problematic in the extreme, especially if you have not read the original. JoshuaZ 18:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

REPLY: Reread the CreationWiki citation. Plus I have read another internet source which cites the same quote.

Conservative 18:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

My CreationWiki material where CreationWiki provides quotes

The CreationWiki quotes I used do cite their sources which can be checked by clicking their respective CreationWiki links to their associated sources. I see no real issue here. Conservative 18:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Creationism

Sorry I have failed to address this issue so far. I am opting to retreat with my tail between my legs. I may return later. --Horace 04:59, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Bonobos

Thanks for helping out with the Bonobos article. I didn't realize that some of the words mignt be too explicit. I had hoped that I used them in a clinical sense. The same words are used at the National Review and NARTH sites.

Albert Einstein

Oh I didn't realize that. Thank you. The person replaced information you removed without providing references. Geo. 16:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)

How do you unblock users? Geo. 00:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. Geo. 00:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Conservative

If you're not conservative "by most definitions of the word", then you're not conservative at all. There are no other definitions. Oh, and why don't you tell us why you think that those articles that you listed on your page are "woefully inaccurate"? Are they inaccurate because they don't agree with your worldview? Get over it! Scorpionman 23:03, 6 March 2007 (EST)

BTW, labelling creationists and Christians in general as "fascists" and accusing them of "the destruction of core values of the open society—the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions ... to challenge authority ... to accept that there are other views, different ways of being, taht are morally and socially acceptable." (Chris Hedges, American Fascists—The Christian Right and the War on America) doesn't do your side any credit, JoshuaZ. It's quite obvious just from reading their site and books by them or just by talking to them that this is NOT their goal. It's not as if evolutionists are training kids to think for themselves and draw independent conclusions by indoctrinating them with evolution and saying that creation is absolutely for-sure wrong! Not to mention the part about challenging authority; the Bible encourages submission to authority. This is an embarrassment to you and the rest of the liberal community (although there are millions of others). Scorpionman 10:47, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Responding on S's page. JoshuaZ 11:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Ann Coulter certainly is not an embarrassment to us. As for Michael Savage, I really don't know where he stands. He seems to be anti-liberal sometimes, but then later he praises theistic evolution, so really I think he's like John Kerry: wishy-washy. Scorpionman 18:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Block times

This user may come back in year changed for the better, if not he will be infinitely blocked. This was for a pattern not just vandalism. Geo. 01:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Re: Theistic evolution article

I made some comments on the theistic evolution article which I hope you found were reasonable. And no, I did not take the creationist side in this matter. I think I made both sides of the creo/evo issue unhappy but I did what I thought was necessary to insure a quality article was created. Conservative 19:40, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Help

You look like someone who knows what he is doing. I seek your advice on uploading a picture file. I do not seem able to do it. Do you know what might be the problem? --Horace 19:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Not really. I suggest you talk to Dpbsmith. JoshuaZ 19:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I've gotten a few errors uploading pics on this wiki. Sometimes it works sometimes you get an error. The last time I got an error I tried it again this time checking the box that says ignore all warnings. It worked after that but it could be a coincidence. Sulgran 19:59, 8 March 2007 (EST)

re: your TE draft

Please see: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theistic_Evolution/draft Conservative 20:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

TO: Josh, re: theistic evolution article

I don't have the time to read a lot of articles on the topic of "Theistic Evolution". However, I did briefly scan some articles and they did appear to be written by credible sources (for example, one article PHD after the authors name).

Please don't think I think these articles are necessarily good. I just want to create a starting point.

Please take a look at these articles:

Multiple source article with many quotes w/ sources: [2]

Footnoted article: [3]

ASA article Written by a PHD: [4]

5 footnotes in article: [5]

I hope this helps. Conservative 20:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants

Put the Pope material back in. Andy can take it out of the draft if he wants. Conservative 22:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative

question

I know that you are a Admin at Wikipedia and much more knowledgeable about where everything is at Wikipedia. Where does Wikipedia state that they want material written in a non-argumentative encyclopedic tone? Conservative 16:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

You will likely find what you are looking for at the Fariness of tone subjection of Neutral point of view --Mtur 16:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Mtur pointed you to the right place I think although other sections of the neutrality policy other than the Fairness of Tone section may be relevant. JoshuaZ 20:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Howdy!

Hehe thanks, I actually knew that but it was far away in my mind at the time :). I'm at [6] by the way. GofG 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Homosexual Agenda article

JoshuaZ, you need to take a look at the article on the homosexual agenda. I tried to make it unbiased, but it got reverted back & protected. Will you back me up in saying that where it's not outright offensive, it's at least biased?--AmesG 02:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Roman Catholic Church

whether you like it or not, the vast majority of catholics accept V2 and the current pope

Such people are not Catholic, no matter how much they claim to be. Fact is, V2 is heretical, and B16 is a heretic. Both are condemned by the Catholic Church. --Luke-Jr 11:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

No true Scotsman dislikes haggis... Dpbsmith 11:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

No, it isn't. Since the people who abide by V2 are the current residents of Vatican City. As I asked before, who then is the temporal head of the Catholic Church?--Dave3172 11:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Creationism definition

Instead of going back and forth, why don't we let Administration decide?

Ray Martinez 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Because Aschafly doesn't "scale." As Conservapedia grows it will be less and less feasible to ask him to decide everything, so we might as well get used to working things out for ourselves. As a starting point, I'd suggest:

cre·a·tion·ism, PRONUNCIATION: kr-sh-nzm, NOUN: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.American Heritage dictionary

cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1880, a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b Merriam-Webster online

Dictionaries aren't perfect, and Aschlafly believes they're loaded with liberal bias, too, but dictionaries try to document how words are actually used, and if somebody wants to depart from a dictionary definition I think the burden is on them to justify it. And usually such a departure wouldn't be absolute. It would be something more along the lines of: state something like the dictionary definition, then state something like "However, within the creationist community, a more technical definition is preferred. The American Association of Creation Theorists, in its 1997 Handbook of Creationism, gives this definition," etc. etc.

An analogy would be the word "carnivore," whose dictionary definition is meat-eating animal, but which has a technical definition in Zoology as members of the order Carnivora" which include dogs, cats, and seals, but excludes many meat-eating mammals such as bats, humans, an marsupials... and excludes anything that is not a mammal. Dpbsmith 14:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I see that American Heritage gives what I call the technical definition as its second definition. Dictionaries are really very good. Dpbsmith 14:07, 12 March 2007 (EDT)