User talk:DavidB4

Feel free to post any questions or comments here. If you don't hear back from me, try e-mailing me instead.

block quote

To make a nice quote with huge quote marks, do

{{cquote|blah blah}}

which comes out looking like

“

blah blah

”

I have a small collection of useful stuff like this at the bottom of my user page. SamHB (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2015 (EST)

Thanks! I knew I'd seen it somewhere! DavidB4 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2015 (EST)

elements!

I see you are working in this area. It needs it. Someone who was working on this in the past got banned on a false socking charge (this sort of thing doesn't happen any more), and the topic has been largely a ghost town ever since.

But I'd like to suggest that you try to make the "vital statistics" material either in the template or out of it, but not duplicated or semi-duplicated. You've been adding some information in the text, about such things as uses and discoverer, that are also in the template, and sometimes inconsistently.

I'm not saying one place is right and the other is wrong, or that your approach is wrong. You are obviously putting a lot of work into this. But I'd like you to consider how this issue should be addressed. Is the template a bad idea? Does the template need to be expanded. Does putting stuff in the template rather than in the text mess up the flow of the article? What's the right way to do this? It would be really good if you could put together a vision of how element articles should be handled in general. And then make that vision a reality. If you think the template:element should be changed, say so. Templates are normally protected (because a vandal could mess up a huge number of pages if he could get his hands on one), but I'm sure that, if you request a change, you would be accommodated.

Keep up the good work.

SamHB (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, I noticed this area is lacking. I don't have any specific ideas for changing the template, I just need to say inside it better. I didn't want to undo the work already put into them, but some of what I'm finding is different than what they wrote, or ever worse (for me), I sometimes find they said something I can't find info about, either for or against. Sometimes, too, I have a problem where the info isn't as clear-cut. In Ruthenium, for example, there where three different people who worked on discovering it. In another, two different people discovered it independently.

I was thinking I could expand upon the template info in the article, but you're right, it does get repetitive. I don't exactly know what else to put down, though, other than this and a few other scraps of info. I can't even include a picture of the molecule, since only admins can do that, it seems.

It is a bad idea to restate but expand upon the info in the template? If so, what should I be doing instead?

DavidB4 (talk) 9:31, 28 December 2015 (EST)

OK, I thought about this some more. I think the guideline should be that the infobox has extremely concise material. In many cases we don't have anything more to add to things in the infobox—"X was discovered by Y in year Z". In many other cases there are interesting things to say about it, and that should go in the main body. For example, the discovery of Radium is a fascinating topic, given that this discovery was the gateway to atomic physics. (I just looked; the Radium article just has the infobox. It needs a lot more.) What we say in the infobox of course has to be consistent with the expanded material in the main article. SamHB (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (EST)

That makes some sense, but here's my problem with that: Perhaps I should not compare this site to wikipedia, but it's hard not to. Take Xenon for example. It's perhaps a minor element, right? Therefore you're thinking I shouldn't write any article about it. But if you look at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon) You see a huge article--much larger that the side table, which is also much larger that ours. If I write something, even if it does restate some info, at least it's a foundation for others to add to. Maybe they never will, so I shouldn't though--I don't know. (DavidB4 (talk) N.D.)

My advice: Do not worry about the fact that our articles are less extensive and "encyclopedic" than those at Wikipedia. If you do, you will just give up in despair. WP's articles, especially in math and science, try to be "world class encyclopedic references". Just look at them! WP is the place to go if you really want to see a 38,600 character article on Quantum Chromodynamics. But if, like many people, you want to know what Hafnium is used for, a less grandiose article is the thing. The Tin article says some interesting things about it. That's the sort of thing you should aim for. SamHB (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I suppose that makes sense. I can be discouraging! I was hoping to provide a good amount of info, like WP, but not bore the reader to death with how this guys best friend's brother had a girlfriend who's mother stubbed her toe. I'll see what I can do, anyway. DavidB4 (talk) 9:30, 31 December 2015 (EST)

That "best friend's brother ..." stuff strikes me more as what one would see on low-class news sites and commentary sites than on WP. But, yeah. Avoid it like the plague. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)

True, I was just referring to somewhat relevant information of little or no interest to most. I certainnly will try to avoid this, in any case! --DavidB4 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)

Citations

I have a general question to anyone looking at this. I don't know who to ask, so I'm asking you. What format should I enter citations? On Wikipedia, people seem to use APA, or perhaps Terabian. Here, however, the official rules say that a citation is "generally a web address or book title." That doesn't seem very professional, but is that what I should be doing (as I have been lately) or is ALPA/MLA better? Thanks!

DavidB4 (talk) 9:39, 28 December 2015 (EST)

You're worrying too much about this. We're extremely informal about such things. Look around, and you'll see. Just put in citations in whatever format you think is natural. A web address or book title is usually just fine. SamHB (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (EST)

You are probably right, but I don't want to give the opposition reason to attack. One complaint about this site has been "Articles are either uncited or come from unscientific sources such as right-wing opinion articles and creation science websites, rather than anything even remotely peer reviewed" (https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservapedia.com#page-1). Having peer-reviewed articles is probably not very likely, since most of them are littlem ore that liberals sharing mindless liberal drivel. Some are actually good enough that if we really worked, we could use them, but this would take so much time, I don't think many people try. At the very least, however, I'd like to see plenty of citations from reasonably reputable sources. DavidB4 (talk) 9:40, 31 December 2015 (EST)

“	God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.	”
—Reinhold Niebuhr

Always keep that in mind. Now your division of topics, into those that you can't change and those that you can, may be different from mine.

I generally stick to what might be called "hard science" and "basic knowledge". (My various idioms articles are examples of the latter.) For those you often don't need citations. For example, there are no citations in my tar baby article, with all the talk about the "Uncle Remus" stories. It was all written just from memory. Science topics sometimes get into controversy (relativity, thermodynamics), but I find that it's better to give a clear explanation of something than have to rely on a citation. When challenged, of course I find a citation, always an easy task.

For controversial topics, I just stay away, and accept that those articles are going to find their way into things like the www.mywot.com page noted above. There's nothing you or I can do about them. I just shake my head in bafflement that people are so fascinated with bestiality, or with how 2015 (I guess it's up to 2016 now; it's been going on since 2009 or so) is going to be the worst year for fill-in-the-blank. And I shake my head in bafflement that people think that kind of writing is going to win people over to Christianity, or enhance Conservapedia's reputation.

I occasionally stick my neck out and comment on topics that lie on the boundary between hard science and controversy, like cosmology or thermodynamics. But I'm extremely careful here. In any case, I rarely use references. If you find yourself wanting to put in references, I'd suggest that you stay away from creationist or fundamentalist religious websites in support of scientific positions. Good luck. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)

That probably is the safe way to go. I personally prefer to include some citation with almost anything, just to prove truthfulness, but that could be considered preference. I've been keeping away from the controversial ones for the most part too, but I suppose someone should write them. I have tried to tweak a few to make them more fair and convincing at the same time. As for references on them, though, wouldn't a creationist/fundamentalist citation be better than none at all? Sometimes, they are the only ones who say what everyone should be saying.--DavidB4 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)

Interest to user

Maybe this article will be of interest to you. U.U (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2015 (EST)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've added some info, and tried to make a bit of structure. If I find more info, I'll try to come back and add it. Of course, feel free to add to it as well, or reorganize. Do you suppose we should try to get an admin to include a screenshot of the program? DavidB4 (talk) 9:16, 29 December 2015 (EST)

Sure. Although I do not have plenty of time, I will try to help if I can. You can tell me on on my talk page if you need help. Thanks for your efforts. U.U (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I have gone ahead made the request [1]

Thanks! I'm happy to try to help, but I'm not perfect. Feel free to improve anything you want! DavidB4 (talk) 9:41, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Thanks and some input/feedback

Thanks for all your contributions. We very much appreciate having fellow conservatives involved in our project.

Second, make sure you add category tags to all your articles plus have another page or pages link to your new article. Otherwise, the articles will never be found or added to. For example, add a category tag or tags to the bullet article. Have the gun article link to your bullet article.

Next, as far as length of new articles, you want the articles to be like an encyclopedia in length as far as your new articles and not like a dictionary. A basic rule of thumb is to avoid stub articles. You don't want to disappoint an encyclopedia reader with a stub article. It is better to create one encyclopedia length article than create many stub articles. And as as added bonus, you will get more people to read your content as non-stub articles are often listed by the major search engines.

I hope these suggestions help.

And again, thanks for all your efforts. Conservative (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I also thank you for your work. But I'd offer slightly different advice. (Cons, you know what's coming!) Put in categories, but you don't need to fill your articles with lots of incestuous links, the way the above author does. If someone wants to read more on a related page, he will click on the category and see what's there. It's that simple.

Also, don't use "plus" as a conjunction, the way Cons did above. I've complained about this to him on several occasions. The sentence should have been "... add category tags to all your articles, and have another page or pages link ...". It is a compound sentence. "And" is the correct conjunction. And, since it is a compound sentence, there should be a comma.

As far as stubs, write articles as you see fit. Don't worry about what will be noticed by search engines. If it's in the category, people will find it.

One complaint: Whenever you see "it's" with an apostrophe, say "it is" to yourself. If it doesn't sound right, it's wrong. "It's" is a contraction of those two words. I've complained about this many times to various people. It's not that hard to put each apostrophe in its proper place. Another pet peeve: You're (you are) going to be more successful as a writer if your (possessive) apostrophes are properly used.

SamHB (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Note: Cons put in a note here in which he said the Richard Dawkins article got 700,000 views, that Richard Dawkins liked it so much that he has invited Cons over for "tea and trumpets [sic]" at his house, and that said house was built on the backs of slaves (because some of Dawkins' ancestors were slaveowners). He then vaped that note, as you can see in the edit history. I'm replying as though the note were still present.

Trumpets, huh?

Do you really think the people making those views were sympathetic? Do you have evidence for it? Have you read this, for example?

@David: Congratulations, you have arrived as a full-fledged editor of Conservapedia. Complete with a dispute involving Cons. Cons and I have been giving each other a hard time for quite a while now, notably on my talk page, AugustO's talk page, and EJamesW's talk page. And now yours. You're in the big league now.

Enough of this. Let's all get back to work. SamHB (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2015 (EST)

SamHB, the Richard Dawkins article has received about 700,000 page views (The counter got reset). I also jokingly said that I heard that Dawkins wanted to extend such an invitation.

Anyways, Dawkins doesn't nearly have as many fans as he used to have and people with unfavorable views of him have soared in number. Many people view Dawkins as a cranky old man whose bitter that: feminists prevailed over him, creationism is growing fast in the world and that Muslims are pouring into Europe and the UK. Conservative (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2015 (EST)

The above graph shows the monthly website traffic to Richard Dawkins' website as of June 22, 2015 in terms of unique monthly web visitors. As you can see above, in 2012, Richard Dawkins saw a very large decrease in web traffic.

The website traffic is measured via Quantcast which directly measures Dawkins' website traffic via embedded code on his website.

Well, Thanks for you input, Conservative and SamHB. I have mixed feeling on large vs. small articles. Is it better to find a small article, or no article? I guess that depends on opinion. I'm leaning in the direction of more smallish articles, but more than three or four sentences. I don't really care about search engines, I just want ti improve things here. Also, I do try to keep my contractions in order, but feel free to give a yell if I mess up, as you did already at least once. (I guess I'm an official criminal not, huh?).

oh, and @SamHB, I see what you mean. I like the welcoming committee--thanks...I think.

Got the screenshots

I got the screenshots for VLC and Mozilla Thunderbird. Check out the articles. We can even make them better and more informative. U.U (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Nice! Thanks for requesting them. I'll see if I can improve the articles. I have limited knowledge about Thunderbird, but I'll see what I can do. On a side note, how did you request the images to be added? Or more to the point, how might I request this in the future?

Thanks again!DavidB4 (talk) 8:42, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I've added a table of keyboard shortcuts to VLC. Do you think that's too much or off topic? DavidB4 (talk) 9:15, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I simply posted a request on this page [2], and an administrator informed me that he had uploaded them. If you want to see how I requested, click this [3]. And as for the shortcuts, I think they will be fine unless some other users say otherwise. I am not perfect either, but when I have the time, I make improvement to articles too. Have a good time editing! If you need me, leave a message here or on my talk page. I will answer the next time I visit Conservapedia. U.U (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2016 (EST)

That's good to know--thanks! I didn't know about that page. Now that I do, I will probably put it to use! Any thoughts on what else we should add to either page? DavidB4 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (EST) I can't think of any at this time. When I have some good ideas, I will inform you. U.U (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2016 (EST)
Alright, thanks. I'll see what I can come up with, as well. Back on the topic of images, are they expected to be from Wikimedia? It seems that most, but not all, are from there. Thanks again! DavidB4 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Concerning your last question, I am not sure. I just requested them as they were the most convenient to find. You might be able to ask an administrator if you wish to know. You're welcome! U.U (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I was going to answer some of your questions here, but I didn't have time, and it seems that U.U got you all caught up. The thing I would add is, in answer to your last question, wikimedia things are good, because it's a stable site and has a huge amount of good things. All wikimedia projects are set up so that they can just include any image directly in any article. Conservapedia requires that all images be on the local server—no off-site links, so you have to request an upload, as explained above. If it's a wikimedia image, or something similarly on an existing we site, it's straightforward. If it's something of yours, you have to get it uploaded somewhere. I don't have a web site, so I have, on occasion, mailed image files to sysops, like the ones in Debate:What_is_the_exponent_of_r_in_Newtonian_gravity?. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)

One more thing. I really like the work that you and U.U (or is that U and you.you?) are doing on Mozilla and Thunderbird. These are topics that I am interested in, and I will help out when I get a chance. SamHB (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, U.U has done a pretty good job. It's good to know that there is no way to include pictures from remote servers, though. I suspected that was the case, but wasn't sure.

As a side note, maybe I should just go with the flow, but isn't Wikimedia owned by Wikipedia?

We welcome any help you can offer! I've just written a little bit one them--U.U was the one who created them, wrote some, pointed them out to me, and got the images for them. If either of you have thoughs on what else I can do, let me know!--DavidB4 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)

Vandal

By the way, there is a certain vandal who has not made a single constructive edit. All he has done is to blank talkpages and userpages (see his editing.[4]). He is clearly here to disrupt Conservapedia. I have reported him to Mr. Schlafly and Jpatt.U.U (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2016 (EST)

He was blocked by PeterKa. [5] U.U (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks! He blanked a new page I made earlier today, too, as well as my own talk page. I wondered how to report him.

You're welcome! By the way, I wanted to ask you if it is possible to borrow data from Wikipedia. It would save time in creating an article. However, according to the Guidelines[6], it is only permitted if you wrote it or if the person who wrote it gives you permission. Is there a way to use data from Wikipedia without plagiarizing? It would save time and work in creating an article. Could you, for instance, change data to the point that the words are entirely different? If not, tell me so. U.U (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I know what you mean, but that would be pushing it. You can read over what they wrote, look at their sources, then write your own article based on that. Even then, you should cite the non-Wikipedia sources. Taking and changing their article, though, is not a good idea. If they contribute to your article, you need to cite them. If you take a part of what they wrote, don't try to hide it. For text from a single source, you can include it as a cited quote. You can't do that WP though. Your best bet is to look up the sources used in the WP page, and see if you can quote from them. Besides, what good is Conservapedia if it is composed of text directly from WP? DavidB4 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2016 (EST)

I had in mind that after borrowing pieces from Wikipedia, users could edit the articles and then the content of the Conservapedia article would gradually become entirely different from the borrowed Wikipedia pieces. However, as you have just said, it would not be a good idea. Your suggestion is good. I will try it, although, as you can see from my often creating stub articles, my time and writing are quite limited. Thus, after I have improved my researching and writing skills, I would be glad to try out your suggestion. Thank you for your help! U.U (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2016 (EST)

By the way, if you do not get a reply after you have answered me, it will be because I will have turned off my PC. I will answer your reply the next I come if I turn off my PC before you post. U.U (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2016 (EST)

Alright, no problem--likewise for me. I do have a life outside of the cyber world, so I'm not always available to reply. I'll just assume that I will hear back eventually, and you can do likewise. As is evidenced by this reply, I only have certain times I can be online. Any time you can spend here is good, any time you can't is fine.

As for copying from WP, I know what you mean. In theory, it can be a framework on which changes may be made. However, since it is someone else's framework, that should be avoided. Just write what you can, with expansion in mind. I'm not the best or brightest, and there are surely better ways, but I just try to include a little basic info, and categorize it so that others can add easily, as they see fit. As long as the original work is yours, this is a good plan. I sparked a bit of a discussion between SamHB and Conservative on this topic. There are different viewpoints, but mine is becoming the rather obvious, "Better to find an article than not, but better to find a full article that a stub." If I can make a full article, I try, but if I don't have enough knowledge, I at least create a stub to others can find something and improve upon that. Just remember--even stubs need to have citations.

[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2016 (EST)

As far as vandalism, just report it to any sysop who seems to be online, if you can. If not, don't worry about it. If you see a huge vandalism spree, it may look scary, but don't worry about it. Admins will find it, block the person, and revert everything very efficiently with the special tools that they have. You can revert things yourself if you want, but don't beat your head against the wall doing a lot of reverting; admins can do it much better. Remember: nothing will be lost on a wiki (unless of course someone vapes it, but only admins can do that.) It's all in the page history.

It's always exhilarating for a new user to see that a page that he has written has been vandalized, but the novelty wears off after a while. Vandals typically look a Recent Changes and hence vandalize recently edited pages.

About copying stuff: We're nowhere near as fussy as some people in the academic world are. Do not copy-and-paste blocks of text from other sites (unless you are quoting them and identify that that's what you are doing.) But other than that, just say it in your own words, and you'll be fine. Antimony is used in flame-proofing, paints, batteries .... Just write. SamHB (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (EST)

Regarding vandalism, I'll try to find an admin next time. I just didn't know if there was some special way. I did know some about history and mass vs. single reverts, but thanks. I did do single undos on this page and one other I was working on, but didn't bother with any others. It seems he/she went to my site, also, and posted some x-rated stuff on the support forum. I suppose that's his/her way of harassing contributors, but it's no harder to ban there than it is here. I'm not sure I'd call vandalism "exciting" to me; perhaps it would best be called bemusing, because it is entirely pointless, yet they keep trying.

As always, thanks for you input and assistance! DavidB4(talk)

Thank you. Sorry that I did not reply earlier, but I do not always have time to edit. I will try to improve my skills. Speaking of what Sam said, I wrote an article [7] on millipedes. I used the Britannica article [8] as a framework. I deleted it, thinking it plagiarism, but Sam's words seem to imply that it is okay. Compare my article with Britannica's and see if it is okay to restore my article. U.U (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2016 (EST)

I haven't had time to check this yet, so I can't really say whether it's OK. I'll try to get to it. Meanwhile, if anyone else can look at it, that would be good. But the current state, by AWagner, ("very large number of legs") has got to go. It looks childish. SamHB (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2016 (EST)

No need to apologize for not being on here as often as others. I have a LOT of free time right now, but it comes and goes. You may not see me for weeks or months at a time with little or no warning.

I'm not sure what to say about your article. It is somewhat different, but I can still see it's origin in it fairly clearly. Maybe if you find some more info on it and interject (and cite) that, it would help? I have a hard time saying "this is fine" or "this is plagiarism." I just try to keep well clear or the grey area (though I may or may not succeed). To some extent, this is a subjective call, and since you're the main writer, you're the one to make that call. If you think that's okay, then you can publish it and I and others will probably try to improve is somewhat.--DavidB4 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)

I'll restore it, and some other editors may be kind enough to improve it. After all, I cited the original Britannica article. So, the original source is not unacknowledged. Hence, we can improve it, and it, eventually, will become entirely different from its source. U.U (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (EST)

I tried to give it a bit of an overhaul. In general, it's a good idea to make sections, so I've done this, as well as adding some more info. It still seems a little choppy to me, though, so someone might want to smooth it out. Feel free to recategorize stuff to--I did it a way, not the way. --David B (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2016 (EST)

I need a screenshot of Microsoft Edge. And, if possible, have Conservapedia's homepage in the screenshot.

Hi, can you upload a screen shot of Microsoft Edge? I just created a stub article on it, and could not find a good image on Wikimedia. It appears you have a site for posting images. If you have a copy of Windows 10, you could take a screenshot and post it on your site. If not, you could have a friend with Windows 10 do it for you. And one request, will you have Conservapedia's main page displayed in the screen shot? Conservapedia does not have an image with bearing itself. U.U (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2016 (EST)

I'd be happy to make and host and screenshot you want, but I do not currently use Windows 10 for privacy reasons. I can take a screenshot on Windows 7 or XP, but I don't think Essentials comes with those, at least not in the form you want. If you can get your friend to take it, though, I'd be happy to host it. If you know of a way I can take one myself, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, attach the one your friend makes to an e-mail and send it david_b4@archnet.us --David B (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (EST)

It's all right. Unfortunately, I do not have 10 either, nor do I know someone with 10. And I think MS Edge is not compatible with other versions of Windows. Likewise, I do not know how to take a shot any other way. However, you might have a friend with a copy of Windows 10. If you do, you could ask him to upload a shot. U.U (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (EST)

By the way, on Wikimedia there are plenty of shots of MS Edge [9]. However, they all had Wikipedia on them. I only asked you to upload as I was uncertain if Conservapedia would want a shot with Wikipedia on it. If they don't mind, we could upload from there if we are not able to get our own shot. U.U (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2016 (EST)

I see what you mean--they do have a number, though only one is of Wikipedia in English. I don't think Consevapedia will throw you out on your ear if you use one with wikipedia in it, but it would be better if we didn't need to. If it's a choice between one with WP in it, and not having one at all... I don't know, maybe the WP one is better???--David B (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2016 (EST)

CCongratulations DavidB4!

His DavidB4. I wanted to let you know that Mr. Schlafly promoted you yesterday from SkipCaptcha to SkipCaptcha, edit and Block. I do not know what the terms mean, but it appears you have been promoted to something. See here for details. Have a good time improving Conservapedia! U.U (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2016 (EST)

Congratulations DavidB4!

His DavidB4. I wanted to let you know that Mr. Schlafly promoted you yesterday from SkipCaptcha to SkipCaptcha, edit and Block. I do not know what the terms mean, but it appears you have been promoted to something. See here for details. Have a good time improving Conservapedia! U.U (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2016 (EST)