User talk:Dpbsmith

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will N. (Talk | contribs) at 12:23, April 30, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Older material:

I need your help. Can you come to Category talk:Articles with unsourced statements? --Ed Poor 10:23, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Timing

Exactly the edit I was making. [1] Thanks for helping to tidy up. --Ed Poor 21:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Church of Jesus_Christ of Latter-day Saints

Thanks for adding the categories back.[[2]] I agree, those categories are not redundant. Crocoite Talk 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Tea and Sympathy?

I've noticed that you are very good at making clear points without offending anyone, so I am requesting that you at least check out Square root and Scientific Revolution, especially the latter, and tell me what you think [my course of action should be] sometime, on their talk pages or mine. Thanks in advance, Human 15:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the help and participation. I think SqR is close to being a good file now. It's so much better to have more voices involved, I think. Sci Rev, however... man. I should just stay away from these moated files. Rschlafly (Roger?) told me that the creationist textbook I quoted (fairly, too) was biased and full of myths. Well, I knew that, but not in the way Rschlaughly thinks! I suspect the only solution would be a good, real article written in a sandbox, followed by a revert war and subsequent banning of yours truly.
Anyway. I found a new mess ;) But it's not war bait. Musical Instruments should redirect to the singular (IMO), not vice versa. And Musical Instruments Master List is redundant and proving it. One links to flute, the other to flutes. The two articles are both floating out there semi-independently, with "trees" being built off them with no rhyme or reason (or melody either!). It's going to be work combining them and any split files linked from them, but I think it would be worth it.
By the way, I seem to have my own set of internal "wiki rules", like article titles always being singular and such. Of course, this site has no standards or manual of style other than what immigrants from WP bring with them (I think I have personally bolded 200 article title first uses!). So, thanks again, and if you want to hep with that music thing (I saw you had worked on both files) that would be great! Human 21:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Paradigms and Sympathy

Can you take a glance at Paradigm shift? I gotta go to work, can't finish it. --Ed Poor 07:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


Thank you for the clarification of the Scientology article. It's been giving me problems.--JoyousOne 18:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And thanks again...--JoyousOne 19:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Unitarian

I don't understand what you mean about the quote. Babbit

AFSC

I have re-done the article under the correct heading. Thanks for your help. I don't know how to delete the original article though - can you help? Thanks.--Britinme 14:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure what the point was, then, of going through the business of what is legitimate to copy and under what rules... I could certainly rewrite it, but it would essentially be a rephrasing of what's there, though probably somewhat more concise. That, in the end, seems to be a dodgy way round the copyright rules, since AFSC is the best source on their own work. It seems a worthy subject, suitably encyclopedic, and links to the Religious Society of Friends article to expand it. Let me know when you've considered what I've said here, and if necessary I will rewrite.--Britinme 14:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC, then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. Dpbsmith 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Well I have rewritten the article and have it saved as a document to use if necessary. I rewrote the first and last sections to add a better historical context, and left the middle sections - the mission statement and values sections - as they were, with the statement about copying. If you want me to post that, I can. I'll leave it until tomorrow to give people a chance to decide what to do about it. However, the point about rewriting is that there is no other real source for information that isn't taken from AFSC. I have rewritten it in a way that does not directly copy but uses the information, and I think that would be acceptable to the AFSC if it's acceptable to Conservapedia.--Britinme 15:35, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
This discussion is probably better continued at Conservapedia:AFD American Friends Service Commission; I've copied your comments there. (I'm sure there are other sources for information about AFSC than their site, by the way...)Dpbsmith 15:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I dont Understand

Why did you right that huge article on the Univeristy of Wiscosin Madison on my talk page? i am not mad, i read it but what was the point you were goin for? --Will N. 08:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dpbsmith&oldid=136519"