Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Jenkins

2007-10-14T18:13:56Z

Tredha:

{{Debate-humorous}}

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:13, 20 September 2007 (EDT)}}

== (...) ==

Come on over! --[[User:LinkedToCommiePlot|LinkedToCommiePlot]] 10:53, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
:Duly noted, but I think this link on my page would get me into more trouble than I am in already ;) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:02, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

==*Faceplants*==

Hey, really sorry about the edit conflicts there. Which one should we keep? "Psychology" or "psychology"? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:50, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:It cracked me up, too. After reading through yours, I'd vote for mine. It's shorter and less verbose than yours, but it's better than copy-pasting since it's a non-public-domain source. The articles I created are short and could use some expansion, though; so if you can contribute more to my quasi-stubs, be my guest! I just wanted to fill out the psychology links quickly since I got to head out soon. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:54, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::Fair enough. I wasn't sure about the public-domain-ness of the source; best to keep it short and legal, then add more later. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links..... ==

*Very brave! Even I think twice about going there! The paranoia level must now be at Defcon3! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:24, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::There? ... Or do you mean the people who came here to solicit certain external links? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:26, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. That's why God invented IM! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:35, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, I see... I think... but right now, I'm slightly handicapped in terms of communication, starting even with basic mail (although I should be able to send mails via CP, come to think of it...). And I never used IMs and never had the urge to try it. Right now, I'm mostly a smallscale editor. Maybe I'll get/need it once I get more settled in? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Protection spree? ==
''(The initial post was removed from [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] talk page after just six minutes)''

Apologies if this comes over a bit stronger than intended - I only try to help and learn here on CP, but...
*21:44, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Internet Infidels" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*20:50, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "JP Holding" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*17:36, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Vestigial organs" (same reason as toe [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*17:18, 22 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Brights Movement" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*20:34, 11 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Creation science" (same as theory of evolution [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*17:31, 5 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Atheism" (no more affirmative action for Ungtss's liberalism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
I didn't bother to check beyond September, but (to be blunt) the concept of collaboration on a wiki is completely lost on you, isn't it? I'm sorry, but you never replied to my question on [[Talk:Brights Movement]] (Can I assume that you don't bother to check the talk pages of articles you "own"?), so I'll ask here.

I couldn't help but notice that you instantly protect most articles you contribute to in a major way (notable exception being Greenleaf, although I still kinda wait for a talk page reply there... Have you moved on from there? Then I might start editing in earnest there...) - is that normal behavior here on CP? I'm new, so the question is genuine. I'm honestly confused - CP's way of doing things is radically different than that of most projects I watched or joined, so I'm not taking anything for granted by now. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 22:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:I have found that often atheists get very aggressive on wikis. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::So the answer is to simply protect all articles that have anything to do with atheism (and thus with religion, and thus with creationism, and thus with evolution, which is the other end of the chain)?
::I repeat my question: Is this the CP way of doing things? Blind protection because some evil atheist could get the wild idea to edit? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 22:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::(I wanted to ask about this too, and, well, this looks like the place). I can't see that any vandalism has occured on those articles... in fact, for some of them, the almost sole contributor for a while now has been you. Maybe you could give other editors the benefit of the doubt, Conservative? If vandalism or edit wars do occur, then you could justifiably protect the pages again. But to do so pre-emptively just seems rather unnecessaray... and prevents anyone else from contributing, either. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:20, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::In one case at least ([[Brights Movement]]), the protection came one minute after the initial edit, even. This sort of bunker mentality might appear like cowardice to an outside observer. I'm not saying that it is or that I hold this view, but when "aggressive atheists" are the reason why practically nobody else gets a chance to contribute, one has to ask how afraid we are of these evil people. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 22:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Jenkins, you should know we have other ways of handling disputes like this! Conservative, please refrain from public displays with editors, please! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:51, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::<bad Japanese imitation>Hai, hai...</bad Japanese imitation> --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 22:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
*? I have reopened most of the articles there is absolutely no indication of vandalism to any of the ones I have reviewed, and another Admin previously found the same thing, and unlocked a couple of them. They will remain open. They have not proven problematic, not even Atheism. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:04, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
::Literally (I assume), "Yes, yes...". In this case it was more of a "Ah, okay, gotcha". Regarding your unprotection: I'm sure I won't be the only one, but let me be the first one to say "Thank you!" :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 23:08, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::I'll second that thanks. And on that note, I'll also get the heck off your talk page already... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*I am going to leave it to you guys to let me know if anything is locked again. Please be responsible, and no wholesale revisions, and keep an eye on the articles, and revert any vandalism that might come about, ok? My contact info is on my User page. Thanks! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

==[[Appeal to emotion]]==

Jenkins, after you cool off, please make concrete suggestions for improving the news about Myanmar which I wrote so hastily. For example, is it so erroneous that it should simply be reverted? Or can you think of a better way to describe the clashes among the Burmese? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:56, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Blocked for lying ==

*several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it

This means that Ed Poor ... tried to add ... bias.

Yet you asked, ''Please point out where I said "Ed Poor tried to add bias".''

Either you did - or you did not - accuse me of adding bias.

You can't have it both ways: that is lying. Liars can't be trusted. We only allow trustworthy contributors here.

You may appeal your block to Mr. Schlafly, but he's a lawyer. You're unlikely to be able to trick him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== Warning ==

Jenkins, your posting to [[Talk:Main Page]] was garbage. Be productive, or leave. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:55, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
:Roger that. I shall refrain from pointing out the flaws in Conservative's argument and instead focus on improving the site. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry about that ==

I was reverting edits of a sanctioned vandal [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:MichaelS]. Slash & burn, you know. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
:No harm done (even though it would've caused some confusion during the next archiving). But maybe a "Look what the edit did" step should be added before the "Slash" part? :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:26, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

You are an overachiever! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:47, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:Eh, he was slow :P Although it would've been kinda tiring, so thanks for cutting him off :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 22:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::No problemo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:52, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

==Better reference==

Thanks, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mass_murder&diff=312838&oldid=312822 this] is more clear. I like having readers know who says what.

The best formula is:

:X said Y about Z

Cheers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:58, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

==Hey, Sorry==

I wasn't trying to put the blame on you. I guess, even coming from me, it might have seemed that way, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. You are definitely a very dedicated and perseverant editor... Maybe if I want to be clear and not-indirect I'll just use email next time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

User:Jenkins

2007-10-14T18:13:37Z

Tredha:

{{Debate-humorous}}

<div align=center>Current mood: <big>Slightly disillusioned</big></div>

User:Ed Poor

2007-10-14T18:12:34Z

Tredha:

{{Debate-humorous}}

[[Image:Christ-our-pilot.jpg|thumb|Let Him be my guide.]]

Archives: [[/archive 01|01]] [[/archive 02|02]]


[[Special:Contributions/Ed Poor|Contribs]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Blocks] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/protect|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Protects] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/delete|user={{urlencode:Ed Poor}}}} Deletions] 

==Favorite Contributors==
*[[User:ATang]]

==About yours truly==

I am a SYSOP on this site, elected unanimously by the student board on my 6th day here.

True wikis have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy.

Number of times my user page has been vandalized: 5

I started learning [[PHP]] {{age in days|month1=5|day1=19|year1=2007}} days ago. And I got hired as a webmaster 2 weeks ago.

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User talk self}}
{{Userboxbottom}}
Q: Is this your personal blog, or what?!

A: No, but it just so happens that nearly every word I type, link I create, article or template I start - gains instant and widespread acceptance.

Q: Isn't that a bit arrogant?

A: Okay, I guess you're right. Perhaps I should be more humble.

==Wikipedia and Conservapedia==

There was a time when Wikipedia was a [[meritocracy]], and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committees, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the [[anti-elitism]] creeping up and choking the life out of the place. [[Larry Sanger]] was right.

My only worry about Conservapedia is that it '''might''' make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

==Recent ideas and/or articles==

*[[Identity, democratic polity and the writing of reliable articles]]
*[[Honor killing]], [[female genital mutilation]], et al.
*[[hate speech]]
*[[mental illness]]
*[[Ann Coulter]] - must add her thoughts re: liberals
**[[Godless (book)]]
*"why are Jews so successful" - need a good title for this
*[[Todd Beamer]] - 9/11 hero
*[[exorcism]]

===Not started yet===
*[[fact and conclusion]] - what's the difference?
**[[theory and fact]] - ditto
*Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.
*[[carbon offsets]]
*[[Arthur Robinson]] - Christian, scientist, home school advocate
*[[Colin Ferguson]] - LIRR shooter
*[[Values clarification]]
*[[junk pyramid]] - the illicit drug trade

===Last 9 created===

*[[Flight 327]]
*[[Don Rickles]]
*[[Mimesis]]
*[[Assault on Reason]]
*[[Honesty is the best policy]]
*[[Scott Peck]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Values clarification]]
*[[Huckleberry Finn]]

==Etc.==
My interests include history, religion, and science.

I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution.

I'm also pretty good at science, logic, history, etc.

If you have any trouble on the site, a question about my edits/blocks/redirects/protects etc. please post on my talk page or email me and I will address them ASAP. I am open to working with everyone who demonstrates a genuine will to improve this site through their work.

{{user|Ed Poor}}

==Subpages==
[[/devil]]
[[/evolution]]
[[/coulter]]

==NPOV==

Here are the most commonly violated principles of neutral editing at Wikipedia:
* It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
* Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
* Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations which label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions which can speak for themselves.
*Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]].
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] or a vehicle for [[propaganda]] advocacy or [[advertising]].
*A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
* Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.

I am on probation at Wikipedia for trying to point out some of these problems and just might get my account blocked! :-)

Use Google to search for ''Ed Poor probation''
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ed+Poor+probation]

==New Pages==
Last 48 articles I started:
#[[Drew Barrymore]]
#[[Cinderella]]
#[[Education]]
#[[The Standard Deviations of Writing]]
#[[Islamist]]
#[[Bobby Darin]]
#[[Humiliation]]
#[[User contributions]]
#[[Mosaic]]
#[[Alice Miller]]
#[[Gavin de Becker]]
#[[Outer space]]
#[[Corporal punishment]]
#[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
#[[Conscience]]
#[[Human nature]]
#[[Healing]]
#[[Universalist]]
#[[Media Matters for America]]
#[[Ave Maria]]
#[[Alpha male]]
#[[Peter principle]]
#[[Murphy's law]]
#[[Biologist]]
#[[How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia]]
#[[Abortion controversy]]
#[[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]]
#[[Flying machine]]
#[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
#[[Debate:Is waterboarding torture]]
#[[Drunk driving]]
#[[Scrabble]]
#[[Martyr]]
#[[Monopoly (board game)]]
#[[Mass murder]]
#[[Narnia]]
#[[Terms to avoid]]
#[[Edit conflict]]
#[[General Theory of Evolution]]
#[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]
#[[Instant messaging]]
#[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
#[[Kyoto Protocol]]
#[[Air pollution]]
#[[Rahab]]
#[[Primate (church)]]
#[[Slamming the door]]
#[[Wikipedia:POV pushing]]

These are the previous 50 articles I started:
#[[Right to life movement]]
#[[Saline abortion]]
#[[Comfort women]]
#[[Silent scream]]
#[[Speech codes]]
#[[Balint Vazsonyi]]
#[[Usage]]
#[[Theory and fact]]
#[[Rastafarianism]]
#[[Wiki way]]
#[[Red link]]
#[[The word]]
#[[Getting Better]]
#[[Brian Mitchell]]
#[[How to write a Conservapedia article]]
#[[Unguided evolution]]
#[[Fidelity]]
#[[Conscientious objector]]
#[[National Center for Science Education]]
#[[Infrared]]
#[[I Have a Dream]]
#[[Paul Simon]]
#[[Political spectrum]]
#[[Infinity]]
#[[Equality]]
#[[Trawl]]
#[[Orbit]]
#[[Deduction]]
#[[Sit-ins at lunch counters]]
#[[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]
#[[Diane Ravitch]]
#[[George Carlin]]
#[[Donkey]]
#[[The Manchurian Candidate]]
#[[Wolves]]
#[[Suffolk Punch]]
#[[Manure]]
#[[Riders of the Purple Sage]]
#[[The Family Man]]
#[[Brainwashing]]
#[[Frank Sinatra]]
#[[To Sir, With Love]]
#[[Strider]]
#[[Hate]]
#[[Methods of contraception]]
#[[Fornication]]
#[[Idiot]]
#[[Ellipse]]
#[[Blood type]]
#[[The Paradoxical Commandments]]
#[[Carbon dioxide]]