User talk:Jcw

This is a meritocracy, and you deserve blocking privileges. They have just been awarded to you. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 09:55, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks Andy, much appreciated. I'll endeavor to use the privileges responsibly and to the benefit of CP. If I have questions about blocking policy or anti-vandal tactics, is it alright to ask publicly on your talk page, or is there a better venue? Thanks again. Jcw 12:50, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Wow, your new privileges were just in time! Great effort a little while ago.

I'll mark your talk page here as "watched" and you can ask any questions about blocking here, or on my talk page. Looks like you already know what you need, however!--Andy Schlafly 13:51, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Indeed, the vandals never seem to be far away... One question occurs at once: from the username policy, I'd assume that anyone with a clearly incorrect username should be gently blocked and invited to re-join. Is that something I can legitimately do, or should I leave it to the admins? Jcw 13:57, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Please do block inappropriate user names, even before any edits. Note that it is necessary to unblock the option boxes in those cases in order to allow re-registering under an appropriate name.--Andy Schlafly 14:22, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. Jcw 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Freyja

I won't put up with edit warring over my talk page. If you want to have this sort of discussion on here, you have to be civil and respectful. Jcw 08:21, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Genuine thanks for being even handed and deleting the whole thread, rather than selectively deleting individual contributions. Freyja

I suppose I can't be upset at your using a sock to post that... I look forward to an interesting discussion elsewhere - perhaps on your talk page, or a CP debate page? Jcw 08:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Question

Hello there, I'm new here on Conservapedia. However it seems I cannot create new pages. Is there any way I am able to do so? Or is it a restriction to protect the wiki from vandals creating nonsense pages? TomFowdy 10:33, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

When an entry does not exist, there is a link to click for it in order to create it. You should be able to do this.--Andy Schlafly 10:35, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

A minor point

First, congrats! And thanks for sorting out the A.D.s at Otho. Now for the minor point: virtually all of you edits are marked as minor. That's very humble, but not right :-) Please have a look at Help:Editing etiquette#Minor Edit box.

AugustO 11:01, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah yes, a good point - I set the software to mark all edits as 'minor' when I first started contributing, and back then it was true. Thanks for pointing it out. Jcw 12:05, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

Alert block

Jcw, your alert block earlier was superb. I should have promoted you to this sooner: SkipCaptcha. Now you won't have to enter captcha characters any more.--Andy Schlafly 18:15, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks Andy, that'll be useful - reverting blanked pages usually involves a captcha, so skipping it will make fixing vandalism twice as fast. Speaking of which, have you considered a tool to allow banning a vandal and reverting all his edits at once? Of course it would only be applicable to the run-of-the-mill drive-by vandals who blank a few pages then get banned, but it could save a lot of time spent reverting. Jcw 18:37, 13 June 2011 (EDT)

I think MediaWiki has an extension called Nuke something or other that does that type of reverting. conservative

thanks, removed reference to website

Thanks, I removed reference to the website in question. conservative 13:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

No problem. Glad to be a help. Jcw 13:15, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

N3hima blocked

Good catch, I think they are trying to check whether the sysops read all the posts. Thank God you were alert :) --Leo-from-UK 19:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. That's actually the first remotely intelligent attempt at vandalism I've seen - I'd almost stopped paying attention by the time it came to the vandalism. I think if the user had had a more reasonable name I might not have noticed at all. Silly vandal! Jcw 21:04, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Hehe, I do not like vandalism, but I must admit that this one attempt made me laugh! Still, good catch! --Leo-from-UK 02:23, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Conservative words count

You appear to have inadvertently reverted my change to the word count on Conservative Words. I added "left wing" to the 1800s. That is why the count was changed. --BertramB 21:15, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Ah yes, my mistake. However, you seem to be adding some dubious words to the list - 'vacuous' seems awfully like parody to me. Please come and discuss your additions on the talk page. Jcw 21:37, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

I confess I am a little concerned and even put out by your reaction to my editing. And by the reaction of Aschlafly. Between you, you have removed all of my additions to the article. At least in your case you gave some sort of reason (in relation to "garrote" which I address below) but Aschlafly gave no reason at all other than an assertion that the edits didn't meet the "particularly high quality level" required. So I am left to ponder how my entry of "vacuous - Empty, void or free. A common characteristic of liberal argument" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "blather - nonsensical or insignificant babble, as in "liberal blather is common on the lamestream media"". Or how my entry of the word "morals - A person's moral qualities" falls below the particularly high standard set by entries such as "fat farm - a place where obese people -- such as self-centered atheists -- might go to try to lose weight". Perhaps you could explain the difference to me? I have an interest in etymology and am very interested in editing the page so it would be of great assistance to know how these things are judged.

As to the word "garrote" I regarded it as a conservative term in light of the fact that it was the state sanctioned method of execution in Spain for some time. Indeed American authorities kept the garrote as a method of execution in the Philippines after its capture in 1898. Capital punishment is often decried by liberals who have little or no concept of righteous punishment for criminal acts, whereas conservatives have always recognised the benefit of capital punishment in building a law abiding and just society. That was why I included the word. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and will not reintroduce the word into the article without consulting you. --BertramB 00:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Trolling?

I'm sorry - but when is raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of people on Conservapedia "trolling"? Or is the standard response to "something I don't like" to delete it? Please can you enlighten me, so I know for future reference. TracyS 10:04, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Please go back and re-read what you wrote. Your tone was rather offensive, indeed it seemed calculated to provoke Conservative. I'm sure you can make your substantive points in a less strident manner, then they'll be more likely to get a response. Jcw 10:14, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, I was - am - annoyed. But I will tone down my questions for him. Thank you! TracyS 10:21, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

No problem TracyS, it happens to us all. Jcw 10:28, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Well-deserved promotion

You've just received a well-deserved promotion to full 24x7 editing, without interruption.--Andy Schlafly 19:30, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Superb, many thanks. Jcw 03:02, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Netball

Hi - I was curious why you reverted my change on netball? SharonW 16:32, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Edited to add: This is from the referenced article on netball: Netball is an Olympic recognised sport. The sport gained recognition in 1995, after a twenty year period of lobbying. It has never been played at the summer Olympics but recognition means that it could be played at some point in the future.

Thanks, SharonW 16:36, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Hi Sharon. That entry could certainly be improved to make the point clearer, but I think it is correct - if you look at the WP article as it is now, and at its talk page, it's clear that there's been an overtly feminist attempt to overstate the importance and the international standing of netball using WP. The links given perhaps aren't the best chosen, but illustrating a wiki controversy by static links is always a difficult task. Note that the example is from Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, so that would be the best place to take issue with it. Jcw 16:52, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I agree that the WP article overemphasizes the sport - I know I've never heard of it before. There already is a statement in the CP article about feminists' arguments about the sport, but I still maintain that the WP article does NOT say the game is played in the Olympics, which the CP article states. The above bolded sentence has been in the WP article since it was created. Personally, I'd add a bit about sport fanaticism too, to all sporting articles, since it can be just as bad if not worse than feminism. ;-) SharonW 17:26, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

I think you're right on that point - I certainly wouldn't object if you re-wrote that part to be clearer about exactly what's wrong with the WP article. As for sports fanaticism, I entirely agree - my idea of sport involves dead birds and gin, so the fanaticism one sees around professional sports is incomprehensible to me. Jcw 17:43, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Endosymbiotic Theory

Hi, I recently authored a page on Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET) that was factually accurate (I cited sources) and well-written (two users felt the page was excellent). I spent a great deal of time on it in order to legitimize Conservapedia as a source for scientific information. However, I found that it was almost immediately altered beyond recognition. We had a less-than-productive debate on the Talk page, and you removed the one comment that was rather insulting/trolling. I fail to see how it was, seeing as it DID raise legitimate concerns concerning the article. I don't know if you read my original article, but I feel that it is far superior to the current one and demonstrates a much better understanding of biological science. Please take a look and give me your thoughts. With all due respect, Professor 18:54, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Hi Professor. Please don't take this personally, but you really could have chosen a better username - real names or something like them are much preferred around here, and a name like 'professor' tends to suggest an attempt to impress with credentials. I'm sure that's not your intention, but one 'professor' amongst many 'first name last initial's is bound to stand out.

As for the article, your version had much to recommend it but was sadly flawed. This site takes a firmly Creationist view, so you must have realized that the large block of confidently-presented 'evidence' for an evolutionary theory would be provocative; then you cap it with a needless quote from Dawkins, which is hard to take otherwise than as an affront.

Speaking for myself, I'd welcome more information about the modern evolutionary view, but this isn't WP - information like that has to put properly in context and not given improper weight. If you want to improve the article, I suggest adding a bit at a time and discussing changes with other editors. Good luck. Jcw 19:19, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

That doesn't justify removing evidence. It's factual information--that it disagrees with a certain fundamentalist world view is not my concern or that of any other scientist. Are you suggesting that we lie or distort information because it is not in accordance with our beliefs? Should we engage in liberal deceit and prevent the truth from being known? It's not only against the teachings of most modern religions to lie: it is also antithetical to the principles of modern society.Professor 19:37, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Professor, this website, by sheer virtue of this name will always prefer the conservative, american christian viewpoint to anything else. please keep that in mind.--SeanS 19:41, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Professor, please don't use words like 'lie' in such a cavalier fashion. I don't doubt that your additions were factual, but the presentation of facts matters a great deal, especially with such a controversial topic. Any discussion of evolutionary ideas must present both sides of the argument - your evolutionary additions are welcome, but the article as you left it was hopelessly biased towards the evolutionary side. No doubt your points can be added to the article, but each put in its proper context and discussed objectively. Jcw 19:45, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Netball redux

First, I get the gin part, but dead birds? Do I even want to ask?

Second, I would appreciate it if someone higher than me here at CP would look at the Bias in Wikipedia entry for netball and gender bias. The part about the editor getting banned for his edits isn't true. He got banned for harassment and for reporting the main author of the WP netball article to her supposed real-life employer. Given the name of the person who added the entry to the CP bias article and who wrote the CP netball article (they used the name of an editor who actually was a supporter of the main author), I suspect either the banned editor or one of his friends couldn't let it go. They made sure to use one of the main author's edits, which then shows her name in the CP references.

I don't like sneaky nasty tricks and this one definitely has the feel of one to me. Thanks! SharonW 10:35, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

The dead birds are the (hopeful) consequence of shooting, a popular sport in the UK. As for the Bias in Wikipedia article, if I understand you correctly you're not objecting to the basic point of the entry, but to the way its worded? If that's the case I'd say go ahead and change the wording yourself. If your objections are more fundamental, the best thing to do is put a query on the talk page - even better, if you can see from the edit history who added it in the first place, a query on that editor's talk page - asking for clarification. I hope that helps. Jcw 11:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Digestive System

Good morning. It *looks* as though you deleted my request for a citation (if not, I apologize for my mistake and would you please direct me to whoever did).

In the Article "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" under the heading "Digestive System" I recently added a request for a citation on the words "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." While I am a strong believer that the Bible is loaded with scientific foreknowledge, I believe this section needs a scientific or medical citation to uphold it as valid as (a) all medical/scientific writings I have read on the matter encourage handwashing before eating and (b) Jesus was talking about the uselessness of CEREMONY - not WASHING.

(Personally, I believe the section should be deleted completely, but Andy Schlafley believes otherwise. As he has stated to me that we resolve arguments with reason in here, a citation is a reasonable request. To say "Because Andy Schlafley says so" is not "reason" nor a medical or scientific argument.)

Kindest regards, Spotsbunch 08:21, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

FYI re: blocking

Andy recommended to me to use a 5-year block instead of an infinite one. See my talk page if you'd like.--SharonW 08:55, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the advice - I'll heed it at once. Jcw 08:56, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Incivility

I wanted to apologize really quickly for the remarks on the debate page. Air conditioner broke today, so I'm a little bit of a bad mood and I let it get to me when editing.--MRellek 17:01, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

No problem, it happens to us all. Happy editing. Jcw 17:05, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

What incivility?

I called his behaviour disgraceful. It is. I've now called it "behaviour unbecoming of a sysop".

Do not censure a debate again. TracyS 10:01, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I recommend taking another look at what you posted. If you can't see how it's uncivil, I'd suggest taking some time away from the keyboard to cool off. Jcw 10:05, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Poll about Rob/Conservative

Instead of removing the vote completely, if you consider the accompanying comments to be rude, why not just remove that part while leaving the actual vote and the signature? --SharonW 14:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)