User talk:DouglasA

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to leave any messages here. DouglasA 10:42, 3 August 2011 (EDT)


The Chosen (deleted)

Was the article about the novel or the film? The novel is an important contemporary bit of Jewish-American writing, and there's nothing wrong with the film. JohnMcL 12:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11

The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: Conservative 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun

The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Just a reading suggestion...

Sam Coulter has helped improve the article, not remove content without reason. ~ JonG ~ 17:59, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Bill Bryson article

Dear Douglas A, Some time ago you deleted one of the articles I created, on author Bill Bryson, with the comment "not notable". (08:59, 18 January 2011 DouglasA (deleted "Bill Bryson" (not notable) ) I would like to ask you to please reconsider this deletion and to reinstate this page, as Bill Bryson is in fact a very notable author, and it took some time and effort for me to create that article. Bill Bryson is a well-known author who has written more than 20 books, many of them best-sellers. Millions of his books have been sold in the U.S. and translated into dozens of foreign langauages. He has won many awards for his writing on travel, language, science and history, including: 2010 Educational Writers Award; 2005 President's Award from the Royal Society of Chemistry; Author of the Year at the British Book Awards; and he has also been awarded honorary degrees by numerous universities. In 2006 the mayor of Des Moines awarded Bryson the key to the city. There are also several pages at Conservapedia that mention Bill Bryson and/or quote him in their references, please see: Gettysburg Address (references Bill Bryson), Des Moines (mentions that The Life and TImes of the Thunderbolt Kid, Bill Bryson's memoir of growing up in Des Moines, was a 2006 bestseller), Anthony Comstock (references Bill Bryson) and Ellis Island (quotes Bill Bryson). So I do believe that this particular page was deleted in error and would respectfully ask that it be reinstated. Thank you very much for your consideration. Taj 08:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Hi Douglas, I noticed you are logged in today, but still haven't replied to this - what are your thoughts on the Bill Bryson article? (see above). Thank you, Taj 12:16, 30 November 2011 (EST)
Hi, this is the third and final request to reinstate the article on Bill Bryson, author, that I created, or kindly provide a reason for deletion. I've been quite patient, bringing it to your attention back in August, and again in November, but it is now December and you still haven't replied. I can't see any valid reason for the article on Bill Bryson to de deleted. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Taj 19:03, 9 December 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 15:04, 16 November 2011 (EST)

A serious Biblical matter

Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--AugustO 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Merry Christmas!--Andy Schlafly 16:15, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Article Deletion

Some of the articles that you are deleting where quite useful articles. For example, the article on direct proportionality was quite decent and touched upon a number of topics. I suggest you restore it. Cheers Dvergne 21:22, 26 January 2013 (EST)

And while you're in the mood you may want to delete Charters. I have transferred the information to the singular version. AlanE 21:50, 26 January 2013 (EST)
and The Punic Wars AlanE 22:06, 26 January 2013 (EST)

At a glance, most the deletions seem fine, but I wonder about a few of them, such as the deletion of direct proportionality as mentioned above.--Andy Schlafly 22:53, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Question withdrawn. The deletion of "directly proportional" (it wasn't "direct proportionality") was appropriate. Thanks, Douglas.--Andy Schlafly 22:56, 26 January 2013 (EST)
I would have thought a move from directly proportional to direct proportionality would have been a better way to go but anyway. Dvergne 00:44, 27 January 2013 (EST)
You deleted Herbert Ives, Directly proportional and Cavendish Laboratory - the latter two for pushing e=mc2 nonsense. It is true that I came up with this subjects while doing research for the articles on E=mc² and Cockcroft and Walton Experiment, and that I therefore stressed the connection to Einstein's famous formula. But if you don't like this, deleting the articles isn't the right thing to do: all three subjects are worthy of an encyclopedic entry. So improve them! And remember: "Conservapedia supports free speech -- even by people we might disagree with. That's a big difference between conservatives and today's liberals" --AugustO 02:56, 27 January 2013 (EST)

Mark 1-8 (Translated)

I've added my comments for all my edits to Mark 1-8 (Translated) at Talk:Mark 1-8 (Translated), gathering them from the edit comments and the annotations columns of the deleted edits. Please have a look & see for yourself that your description of my edits as singlehandedly dismantling the contributions and insights of many others in that section of the CPB is unfair.

BTW: the talk-page should be split, see Talk:Gospel_of_Mark_(Translated)#Redirect_of_the_talk-page.

--AugustO 03:58, 27 January 2013 (EST)

I explained my intended changes to Mark 1:3, Mark 1:6, Mark 1:10 and Mark 2:21 at the talk page (which should be split in two to fit the articles, BTW) I'm waiting for your input on the talk-page(s)! --AugustO 10:18, 28 January 2013 (EST)

Personal tools