User talk:Jeremiah4-22
Conservapedia is not supposed to be reality based? I've studied up the copyright issues on both sites. I've removed liberal bias.
Contents
Shark page
your section on shark attacks and your mention of a "rogue shark" theory were grossly inaccurate. Please refrain from adding to the misconception that any shark has a taste for human flesh. Sharks, and the entire ocean's ecosystem would appreciate it greatly.
Shooting Debate Page
Your comment about the shooting, pondering it was somehow justified or ordained, are inappropriate, inflammatory. Please refrain, okay? --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
- wow. I bet that really freaked him out. "pretty please, don't say killing liberals might be a good thing, okay?" Flippin 10:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Categories
God job on the categories, it's good to see someone else competently working on them. Things like Special:Mostlinkedcategories and Special:Uncategorizedpages are already looking pretty daunting, but hopefully categories will be increasingly better maintained as time goes on. --Interiot 23:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Category:Films
Category:Films was something that appeared to be temporarily used... if it's no longer going to be used, would it be okay to tag it with a {{db|Author changed their mind and no longer intends to use this}}? --Interiot 22:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- Similarly, is Category:Painters intended to be used at some point, or should it be deleted? --Interiot 23:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Please feel free to delete them, since they are essentially duplicates of other categories.
Category:Films the same as Category:Movies
Category:Painters the same as Category:Artists --Jeremiah4-22 07:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I've now marked them both as you suggested.
- Thanks for tagging them. --Interiot 13:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
sottish children
O.K. Jeremiah, point taken. I would suggest you downgrade those sots to lower-case tho. They deserve no better. --MylesP 21:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh,thought upon the stairs. It was just one little c put in there by another little c. --MylesP 04:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
- Cutting text from an article can often improve it, and the text can be put back just as easily as it can be removed. Please take a fresh look at the "Berliner" articles:
- Ich bin ein Berliner - Kennedy statement
- Berliner - about the donut itself
- This matter took a long time to settle at Wikipedia, back in 2003. --Ed Poor 10:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Jesus likes donuts
But does He prefer bagels?--MylesP 23:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Nelson Mandela
If your definition of "terrorist" is elastic enough to include Mandela and the struggle for racial freedom in South Africa, it's elastic enough to include George Washington and the American Revolution. There are times when violence is the only available recourse in the pursuit of freedom. Apartheid - like "taxation without representation" was one of those times. Jacobin 17:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Preserving article history
It's better to have a sysop move the article, than to replace it with a redirect. This preserve the edit history of the article. Just put {{move}} at the top of the page, and I or another sysop will take care of it for you.
(Let me go and make that template now! ;-) --Ed Poor 08:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Cities and towns
- Merging individual towns into the main article for a nation will rapidly become unfeasible; though it may work better at a provincial level..)
I'm thinking to avoid a proliferation of stubs. We don't need to be a gazetteer. Wikipedia made that mistake over my strenuous objections in its early years, largely to get bragging rights about the "number" of articles it had. Somebody wrote a computer program (aka Rambot?) that generated text of around 40,000 articles from a geographical database. --Ed Poor 10:46, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Still, you can't hope to fit hundreds or possibly thousands of sub-sections (however stubby they may be) for each country into an article that's got to be... 32K or thereabouts(?) in total size. --Jeremiah4-22 10:57, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think 32K bytes is a good maximum size for an article. Anything over that should probably be divided into sections. On the other hand, anything under 100 words is probably too short to be an article. I'd prefer to see short, stubby pages merged together. Let's try to find a happy medium between the two extremes. --Ed Poor 11:26, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Biscuit edit
The entry about biscuits in culture probably doesn't have any place in Conservapedia, even if it goes over most people's heads. DanH 03:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Warning
|
Block Notice |
|---|---|
| Edits you have made to Jurassic violate The Conservapedia Commandments. Further violations may result in your username being blocked. |
I'm not happy with the Jurassic article either, but the problem that I have with your edits to it is that they present the evolutionary view as fact, with the contrary creationist view as an also-ran afterthought. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- I do not consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to accurately represent the creationist position on geological time periods. However I would welcome a detailed statement of the creationist view written by somebody with a suitable level of expertise. However, as I've said elsewhere, the stub that User:Conservative has pasted into all these articles is of no value whatever, and indeed, is in breach of Conservapedia Commandments 1,2 and 5.
- Since you seem to insist on removing, without demonstrating any valid basis for your actions, my factual accounts (and those of other editors) of the scientific position, and since the current pro-creationist material (such as it is,) is utterly unfit for purpose, this leaves the section dealing with geological time periods entirely devoid of content.
- Is this what you want for Conservapedia? --Jeremiah4-22 10:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
- Who are you talking to? The last post before yours was mine, yet it wasn't me that removed your "factual accounts", even though they weren't factual. Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry, I had assumed it was you who deleted them, since it was you who sent me the message.
- Who was it, then? Perhaps you could have a word with them. --Jeremiah4-22 10:49, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
- As you can see for yourself, the first message in this section of your talk page is from CPAdmin1, and the second from me. And you can look at the page history to see who did what. Philip J. Rayment 11:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
men in skirts
... do I detect a theme here, or a point, an obsession, or just a way of life?--Felix 07:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Silv'ry Tay
A good tidy-up! Unthank 07:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
literacy?
are you saying i am kinda dumb. i dont have to type perfectly every time i type. I can type like this if you like Mr. Know-it-all. I am not mad at you opposing just that you kinda insulted me. Now if you are a Christian you would take it back. --Will N. 08:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT) P.S I am a straight A student in English and History so i know my stuff.
- Should I take back something I believe to be true (and which is, in this case, rather self-evident)? Plenty of Christians have died rather than renounce their beliefs and opinions simply because other people disagreed with them.
- If you knew your stuff as you claim to, you'd be aware that kinda isn't a word and that I is always capitalised; anyone who is giving you straight 'A's for this standard of written English, ought to be shot (or at least banned from teaching). --Jeremiah4-22 08:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
so now your saying my mom should be shot?!! Has anyone else complained about my typing? --Will N. 08:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- Er, most people aren't persnickity enough to bring it up, but since you're (not the contraction, ahem) going to equate people talking about your typing with proof that you have issues... well, ok, I'll complain. In your two sentences above, one is fine but one is badly mangled. To wit - no leading capitalization, "your", multiple ending punctuation. Your first comment in this section is also quite bad.
- My apologies for butting in, Jeremiah, I'm just browsing the "Recent changes." Aziraphale 16:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
- Mine too. Jer., maybe it was a bit harsh what you said, but Will N., it was in reference to Sysopship, which generally requires people to type in Standard English (not saying you can't, just that you don't). I personally grate every time I see Aschlafly's multiple exclamation marks, but they're tolerable. Close, but tolerable :-). Will, 1 <0u1d 7yp3 3|\|71r31y 1|\| 1337, but I think it would grate with other readers. --Wikinterpretertalk?
- l33t $p3@k, $w33t. Jrssr5 10:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
You're welcome
And stay away from Galaxy for now, no matter how silly you perceive it to be. --Hojimachongtalk 20:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- Galaxy I have not seen. (User:Conservative blocked me for my work on Cambrian.) --Jeremiah4-22 20:21, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
- Understand two things: 1) You most def owe Hoji & Conservative, because it was he who agreed to letting Hoji unblock you, and 2)You now have my attention, and if I see you trying that sort of ploy again, no one will be able to save you. I hope we are completely clear. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks a bunch
for your input regarding User:Hojimachong/Eastern Front; I want it to be a crown jewel of CP, much like the American Civil War article. Once again, thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 14:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
