User talk:GraceDalrymple

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!
Welcome sign.jpg

Hello, GraceDalrymple, and welcome to Conservapedia!

I am a contributor named DavidB4. I see you have already started editing, and I just want to say hello and offer any assistance you might need! Also, we have some guides which might help you get started and learn your way around if you need them.

Useful links

Please take a look at our rules when you get the chance. You also might want to look at the Guidelines of editing and collaborating here.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Also we have a community portal where you can ask general questions, introduce yourself, or just comment. If you do post messages, please sign them by placing "~~~~" at the end of each one.
Thanks for joining our community, GraceDalrymple! We look forward to working with you!
--David B (TALK) 17:53, 14 September 2017 (EDT)


Hello, I'm sorry to hear you are having difficulty! I just checked, and you are not actually blocked, so it should be possible to edit. Ian McKellen also does not appear to be a protected page. Clearly, something isn't working properly, though.
You should be able to see the "Edit" tab at the top, click on it, edit the page as desired, enter an edit summary, answer the human verification question, and submit the change. Can you tell exactly what part of that process isn't working? Do you see a "view source" tab instead of "Edit"? Do you not see a human verification question? Does everything seem to be working, but then the submission is rejected?
Can you let me know exactly what is happening wrong and when? You can continue contacting me using the form, or e-mail me at davidb4-cp@archnet.us
Thanks! We'll do our best to resolve this problem! --David B (TALK) 12:41, 13 December 2017 (EST)

I'm glad you were able to edit! It is strange that you couldn't edit the talk page though. Based on my limited understanding of this problem, it sounds almost like this is some kind of authentication problem, which would probably be due to your web browser. If you want to trouble-shoot this further, you could try some alternate web browser, like Mozilla Firefox.
Regarding the image, you will not be able to upload it directly. Typically, they are linked to on the designated upload request page. If your photo in online somewhere, you could do this or send me the link and licensing info directly. If not, then could you either e-mail the actual file, or temporarallt upload it to some kind of publicly accessible cloud storage (OneDrive, Dropbox, GoogleDrive, etc.) and send me that link. Sorry for the difficulty! --David B (TALK) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (EST)

Hi Dave, sorry to give you all this trouble. I'm on a learning curve. I will send you that picture as soon as I can. GraceDalrymple (talk)

No trouble at all! I'm just glad things are working out for you. We all start at the bottom, I just now have the advantage of a few years of experience. Take your time, and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help too! --David B (TALK) 18:56, 14 December 2017 (EST)
I've created a blank page for Peter Ashman‎, so perhaps you can edit it. You can at least give that a try. I've also added the nomination you requested, although I know noting about the man, so I couldn't state a reason.
When you get the permission error which prevents you from editing, have you checked to make sure that you are still logged in? In the upper-right, your username should be showing if you are logged in, and there should be a "log out" link on the far right of that link list. If you have been logged out or "forgotten," then it will only show your IP address, with a login link on the far right. I ask because I know at least one or two other people have been having problems staying logged in. You account still has no blocks on it, so as long as you are logged in, it should (presumably) work. Thanks for trying other computers and browsers, too--I'd hoped that would help, but I guess it was a waste of time. --David B (TALK) 09:55, 15 December 2017 (EST)
Hi, I think I might have figured out what your problem is. If I'm right, then I should have thought of this sooner. I will be be getting in touch with the website owner to discuss it soon. Thanks for trying different things!
As for the nomination of Andrew Turner, I added it, but it has been removed pending a more full explanation. The main page on the topic is Conservative of the Year 2017. The nomination of Andrew Turner is being discussed onthe related talk page. If you could explain there, it would be helpful. --David B (TALK) 08:45, 18 December 2017 (EST)

Hallo. Things have got better today. Thanks again for all your help GraceDalrymple (talk)

Merry Christmas to you as well!
I'm glad to hear it is at least constant and predictable. I think I know what the problem is--I should have realized it a lot sooner, but I was distracted by other factors. Conservapedia is the target of a fair quantity of vandalism. That really is not a big problem, since we have the know-how and ability to blcok some of it, and deal with it promptly when it occurs. One weakness is that most of our editors and administrators live in the U.S. During night time in the US, there is much less protection, and vandals could potentially go for hours without being caught. With a few button clicks an administrator could revert it all, but still, the site will be trashed until they do. Therefore, we have a "night mode" which blocks new users from editing during these nighttime hours. Not much is written on this site about it, but I think it runs 2am-6am EST, or something like that. Therefore, it would be active for something like 7am-11am.
Editors who have been around a while and proven themselves get an exemption privilege so they are not hindered by it. If you stick around and put up with the nuisance for a while, you will probably be promoted so that it will not be an issue from then on. Until then, perhaps you can just note the times you can and can not edit--it should be the same each day. Sorry for the difficulty, but I think this is what's going on. --David B (TALK) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (EST)

Hallo again. I totally understand about this and why you have to do it that way. I can adapt and live with it. Have a wonderful Christmas. Blessings! GraceDalrymple (talk)

Article formatting need to be improved

Please see these edits I made: [1][2] You need to format every article you create just like I did. The way you format your articles now is not good. Pay special attention to the intro sentence and the reference section, categories, and the "DEFAULTSORT" for biographies. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2017 (EST)

Okay, I will study the editing guidelines more closely and try to format more correctly, also to add some categories. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Sounds good. Please read the links on the welcome template at the top of your talk page. These links, in particular, should be helpful: Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages, Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles --1990'sguy (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2017 (EST)

You still have much to improve, based on your Robert Oscar Lopez article edits, though I do see that you tried to add categories and have a better-flowing intro sentence. However, you still left out the reference section and "DEFAULTSORT". Also, with wikis, the code needs to be formatted in a certain way, and when adding categories, you should check that a category you want to add actually has a page on CP. Please see my edit here, especially the bottom, where I corrected the formatting and categories.

Please look at my edits, as well as existing biographies and other articles. Essentially, you should format the articles in the same way, and you should pay attention to the code. If you do this, I think you will get the hang of wiki editing. Thank you for your work here! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2017 (EST)

This is how you do it. Please do it just like I do it from now on, as my patience is starting to wear thin. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Sorry. Thank you again for all your help. GraceDalrymple (talk)

You're welcome, and that's OK. Just as long as you learn and improve. I think you make good content contributions, so it would be nice if your formatting matches that quality. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Great job on your article Bill Tutte. You fixed everything I asked you to do. Keep up the great work! --1990'sguy (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (EST)

It's a pleasure. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Thanks for all your editing

Grace,

Thanks for all the recent you have been doing. We really appreciate all your efforts.

And best wishes for this new year. Conservative (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Thank you both for your patience and your help. Happy New Year. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Please check my edit of your Larry Brinkin article: [3] Most importantly, when you add categories, it's good to check that those categories actually exist (whether it's spelling, wording, or capitalization). Thanks for your work! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2018 (EST)

Many thanks. I will have to enquire about suggesting new categories.GraceDalrymple (talk)

Our entire list of categories currently in use is available here: Special:Categories. The ones listed in red are categories which have been linked to, but do not exist. Unfortunately, a many people have done the same thing, linking to nonexistent categories.
Our list does not include everything, so if you have searched all the synonyms of the one you need, and we just don't have such a thing, you can go ahead and create one. You do not need any special permissions to do it. Just make user that you capitalize every except for conjunctions, like "Canadian Liberals" or "Conservatives from Canada". If you are not user if there is a suitable category, you can always ask me or someone else to take a look and see if that new category is needed or not. --David B (TALK) 13:35, 15 January 2018 (EST)

Your edits

Hello GraceDalrymple, thanks for your edits on Homophobia and Gender ideology, but I don't see how (overall) they improve the articles. Both articles are now significantly harder to read, mainly because you added all the new info to the intro, so now, all readers see are paragraphs (which dissuades them from actually reading). I partially reverted the "Gender ideology" article edits (I didn't delete them, but I moved them to a section entitled "Overview"). Also, even with the reorganized "gender ideology" article, your info has too many paragraphs and too few citations. I strongly recommend making your edits as concise as possible and adding them under section headers rather than in the intro. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2018 (EST)

I'll take a look at what you changed. Sometimes I have to admit I write s stuff then go and find the references later. GraceDalrymple (talk)

OK. Just please try to be as concise as possible, and I also recommend not making major changes to an article (changes which completely change the organization/format/point of view) without discussing it on the article's talk page first. I also recommend not making gigantic intro sections. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2018 (EST)

Thank you for your valued feedback. GraceDalrymple (talk)

When adding content, please use complete sentences, as this is an encyclopedia. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2018 (EDT)

Improving your editing

While I appreciate your many edits and new articles, you keep on making the same mistakes over and over again. In your last several articles, you stopped adding categories, DEFAULTSORT, and the reference section. Please remember to keep these things in mind when you edit.

Also, you still need to fix the content in the Homophobia and Gender ideology articles.

  • In the Homophobia article, you need to cut the content (specifically, only that which you added, especially the introduction) by at least half.
  • In the Gender ideology, you need to cut only the content in the "History" section by about two-thirds.

As it is now, the info that you added in those articles is way too long and goes on tangents. Readers want a concise article with a short intro. Please fix these. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2018 (EST)

My mistake -- your Tom O'Carroll article had a coding error, so it did not show the categories, DEFAULTSORT, and reference section even though you did add them. I could only see that you did it when I clicked the "edit" button. My apologies. Thanks for your edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2018 (EST)

Hi, I'm glad to hear the O'Carroll article was okay, I will go and cut the stuff about Dr John Money which you think is too long. GraceDalrymple (talk)

I have cut it - do you think I have cut it enough? GraceDalrymple (talk)

I just skimmed over it, but it looks a lot better. But if you can find ways to trim it more (without deleting anything essential) please do -- though it's not the end of the world. Please ask DavidB4 for his opinion.
Please try to fix the Homophobia article now. The intro needs to be relatively short (depending on the overall size of the article, but maybe 2–4 paragraphs is ideal). The intro needs to be a summary of everything that follows -- nothing unique should be in the intro, since it's an introduction. Also, I think you added some info to the article body -- if any of that info is way too wordy and excessive, please trim there as well.
One last thing: your Germaine Greer needs to be split into sections. The way it looks now will discourage viewers from reading it because of all the paragraphs. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2018 (EST)
I know this all can be a nuisance, but it is all in the Manual of Style. This is to help visitors see a well-structured site which is concise and uniform. One of the main things I want to point to is introductions. Users may only want a 30-second answer, so it is important to have a concise, informative introductions. Essays don't need to be structured this way, and can be written in more of a flowing argument, which can wander from point to point. However, this is not the case for "mainspace" articles such as the ones you are working on.
Thank you for your work here--it would just be great if you could make these pages more uniform. --David B (TALK) 14:17, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Hallo. Dr John Money is now a separate article. Germaine Greer is in sections.GraceDalrymple (talk)

Looks good. Please focus now on the Homophobia article -- hopefully what I wrote above about it is sufficient for you. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (EST)
You have not improved your edits on the Homophobia article. I would appreciate it if you would do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2018 (EST)

Okay. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Hallo, I have shifted my additions to the end of the article on Homophobia and cut them quite a bit also divided into sections. I hope you think this is an improvement. If you want to cut them more that is up to you.GraceDalrymple (talk)

It looks good now. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2018 (EST)
Yes, thanks for your efforts. What seems to be a common practice, especially among younger generations, is to look something up on WP for a quick answer, in 30 seconds or less. While I want us to have plenty of information, having a short, concise into helps such users who end up here to not be frustrated by wordy introductions, and move on. --David B (TALK) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (EST)
True, but it's good to make it clear at the outset Conservapedia is offering a very different angle. We don't accept the term "homophobia" or what it stands for.GraceDalrymple (talk)
That's a good point -- there's a balance we need to strike. We need to make clear that CP offers a conservative/Christian point of view while still making sure the articles are reader-friendly. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (EST)

Copied Wikipedia article

It looks like the article you created, George L Jackson (Black Panther), was copied from Wikipedia, something we make very clear in our guidelines is not allowed. In a few hours, I will delete the article. All work on CP that you add must be your own -- you can't copy it from some other website unless you personally wrote it there. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Oh dear, sorry It was essentially copied but adapted from Infogalactic.

Is it OK to keep the bits that do not follow Wikipedia? GraceDalrymple (talk)

Infogalactic copies all their articles from Wikipedia -- if it's an Infogalactic copy, it's also a Wikipedia copy. I checked the Wikipedia article, and it's essentially the same. Our rules are different from Infogalactic, and we cannot copy IG's info either without being our own original work.
Yes, you can keep the parts that are not copies of either Wikipedia or Infogalactic. But please create your original article of Jackson here: George Jackson. The current article title is problematic in more than one way. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2018 (EST)
Okay I will do it this evening. GraceDalrymple (talk)
Sounds good. I will delete the current article within the next hour or two. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2018 (EST)
Fine. GraceDalrymple (talk)
I found there was a spelling mistake in the page William Thorneycroft so I created a new more accurate page William Thornycroft. Can I delete the old one? GraceDalrymple (talk)
Please link to both articles, so I can compare them. When a page has a spelling error in the title, or if it has bad content, never delete it -- rather, you should request that an admin move the page to the correct name, and then improve the article. If you make major edits that change the content, tone, or point of view, you should note this on the talk page. Either I or DavidB4 will deal with this page. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2018 (EST)
Also, please divide your Homocaust myth article into sections to make it more readable. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2018 (EST)
Okay, I will do that.

Here is the link to the original Thornycroft article where his name is spelled wrongly http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Thorneycroft

and the replacement page is http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Thornycroft GraceDalrymple (talk)

I've performed the move. (see: William Thornycroft) Even if you are the only author, it it better to get a page moved, so the edit history is preserved. Since you were the only editor, it wasn't as big of a problem as if there were multiple contributors, but even so, others might not know that the history wasn't as important. --David B (TALK) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (EST)
I've divided the Homocaust page into sections now.

About copying, is it okay to copy my own work from Conservapedia and virtually duplicate it on Infogalactic? Will that cause just as many problems - even though I wrote it? GraceDalrymple (talk)

If you wrote it, then there is no problem with this. The problems arise when others contribute before it is exported, since now you would be taking their work as well as your own. The main issue you might face is people from both here and Infogalactic seeing duplicate content on the internet, and suspecting plagiarism. You might need to prove that it is you who wrote it, to one or both sides if this happens. --David B (TALK) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (EST)

Talk:Homosexual Fascists

Please see Talk:Homosexual Fascists. I think your article (or at least its title) is problematic. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2018 (EST)

Hallo, what action would you advise? I will follow your guidance. GraceDalrymple (talk)
I recommend thinking of a new page title that accommodates the fact that not all of the people in the article are actual fascists (even though leftists lazily and irresponsibly call them that).
I like the fact that the article implicitly notes how liberals say they are totally opposed to what they call "fascism", but they don't mind the fact that many of these fascists supported homosexuality. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2018 (EST)
Okay, what about "Homosexual Racists"? I invite suggestions.GraceDalrymple (talk)
That's also problematic, since you're replacing one slur word that leftists overuse ("fascist") with another slur word that they overuse ("racist"). While many of the people in that article are legitimate fascists and racists (such as Ernst Röhm), others are actually mainstream conservatives by American standards (such as Jörg Haider, who I wrote an entire article about, and even Pim Fortuyn to an extent). I recommend either removing people like Haider, making a clear differentiation between legitimate fascists to those who are slandered as such, or renaming the article to something like "Homosexuality and people associated with fascism" or "Liberal hypocrisy on homosexual fascism." --1990'sguy (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2018 (EST)
It would be good to avoid sweeping generalities. If we keep an article by this name, only true fascist supporters and promoters should be listed. Likewise for the suggested "Homosexual racists" title, since while it is not uncommon for this to be the case, not all of them verifiably are. I suppose they could be split up, but it seems there must be a better title for what is already there. How do you two think something like "Homosexual hypocrites"? Fascism does generally oppose homosexuality, so there is clear hypocricy here even though they don't see it. However, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, so 1990'sguy's suggestions are probably more on point. --David B (TALK) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (EST)
Would it be enough to add a disclaimer at the start saying that some of these people are only very loosely classified as "fascist" by left-wing standards? How about "fascists and quasi=fascists"? GraceDalrymple (talk)

What do you think if DavidB4 renames the article "Homosexuality and fascism"? I think that would be a better title. We can clarify in the article who's a real fascist and who's not -- the article can help mock the claim leftists make that they are totally opposed to everything related to what they call "fascism." --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

If no one objects, I'll move it. I just don't want to pull it out from under you, or pervert it from your intentions. --David B (TALK) 00:34, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

Robert Fleeting

Hello,
I noticed that your draft of a page on Robert Fleeting is still only on a talk page. Do you want to move it to mainspace? If you want an image, let me know and I can (eventually) upload it for you, too. --David B (TALK) 01:51, 10 March 2018 (EST)

Yes please. Go ahead. I have not yet worked out how to upload images. GraceDalrymple (talk)
Image uploads are typically requested on Conservapedia:Image upload requests. The image(s) requested should ideally be either in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. Most images on WikiMedia Commons are usable, as well some from these sources:
If you are unsure about licensing, you can ask me and I will take a look. --David B (TALK) 14:16, 10 March 2018 (EST)
Thank you very much. I will take a look at these resources and see if I can find something suitable. The campaign of the Fleeting family goes on.GraceDalrymple (talk)

HALLO David. Thank you for your message. Sorry for delay in replying, No objection to you carrying out the change your describe if it makes you happier. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Full sentences

Hello GraceDalrymple, thanks for your edits! Please use full sentences when writing articles, rather than sentence fragments -- this is an encyclopedia, so articles should be worded in an encyclopedic manner. In the Aimée Challenor article, in the "Educational qualifications", you made the first sentence "None known" -- this wording is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Please re-add it, using a full sentence rather than a snippet. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2018 (EDT)

THANKS, that is a good point. I will try to correct it and avoid it in future. By the way is there any method of changing the title of an article? I think people searching would be more likely to spell Aimee without an accent and in fact I haven't used it in the rest of the article. so it is inconsistent. GraceDalrymple (talk)
I replied to you comment on that talk page -- I fixed the issue by creating a redirect. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2018 (EDT)
Great. I have to take a break now but will be back later to make sure it is all correct. GraceDalrymple (talk)

Page title for "Sarah Brown Liberal Democrat"

Hello,
I noticed that you created a page titled "Sarah Brown Liberal Democrat." While this is a descriptive title, it is not one most people would look for in an encyclopedia. Ideally, we would have the title be just his name, although sometimes that is not practical since there are multiple people with that name. To differentiate it, perhaps we could use his given name, or something like "Petersfield mayor." Whatever we add should be in parentheses, like: "Sarah Brown (UK)". Do you have suggestions as to what might be best?
Thanks! --David B (TALK) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (EDT)

Thank you. It is a very common name. Maybe I could move it to another page with the title "Sarah Brown (UK Politician)". I just need to figure out how to do this.GraceDalrymple (talk)
If you want to move an article, you should ask an admin or an assistant admin. I'm sure DavidB4 would move your article if you ask. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
Also, when you make section headers, do not use one "=" -- the largest headers should have a two "equal" signs, no more, no less. Please go back to the articles you created and see my subsequent edits. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
I know this may seem like a lot, but it is all explained in the links provided at the top of this page. 1990'sguy is entirely correct, section headings should be created using two equal signs. --David B (TALK) 20:54, 26 September 2018 (EDT)
Thank you. I will change the section headings.

I have another problem. I made an error in the title of my last article, which should read Jane Francesca Fae (not Jane Samantha Fae). I believe that I need to move that to another page to change the title. Shall I ask him on his user talk page?

Article deleted

Your article "Adam Flanders" has been deleted.  If you have questions or would like to discuss it, please contact me at davidb4.cp@archnet.us
Otherwise, just carry on. --David B (TALK) 09:34, 2 November 2018 (EDT)

I assume you have reasons for this.GraceDalrymple (talk)
We do, but it's nothing against you. As I said, feel free to contact me via email for details. --David B (TALK) 17:46, 2 March 2019 (EST)

Moving pages

Hello, We are taking care of the "Jane Francesca Fae alias John Ozimek"/"Jane Francesca Fae" page. However, for future cases where a page should have a different name, please contact me, and/or add {{move|New Page Name}} to the top of such a page. I check such requests periodically, but if you want it done sooner, just drop a request on my talk page. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 17:44, 2 March 2019 (EST)