User talk:Richardm

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, Richardm, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Richardm!

SamHB

This is my talk page. If you have any questions you can post them here. IF you reply to a comment of mine on a talk page somewhere else, then post here and I shall respond quicker.

From SamHB

My apology for not welcoming you sooner. By the way, you are putting me to shame in the math/science area! There have been a number of good contributors in those areas (and a number of bad ones too), but one by one they have gotten banned, or have left out of frustration.

I hope my rinky-dink analysis of quantum tunnelling, explaining, in Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge, that it is not possible that Jesus tunnelled through a wall and appeared on the other side, is correct. Though perhaps not as detailed and rigorous as your analysis.

I've been thinking about some major work on the second law. I think that, as we did with relativity over the last few years, we can finally put the misinformation to rest. Explaining, in excruciating detail, that the entropy change in shuffling a deck of cards, the entropy change in growing an apple, and the entropy change in letting a hot cup of coffee cool, are all on vastly different scales. And that makes a difference.

Interesting factoid: An apple tree can turn dirt into apples. And sunlight can turn a ball of rock into a planet teeming with intelligent life.

SamHB (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Richardm (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I like what you are doing. But here are a couple of suggestions. Keep rebuttal stuff impersonal. "It is baffling that ...." is better than "I don't understand how you can say ....". Also, don't bother engaging people on talk pages (or their personal talk pages). It accomplishes nothing. Though, if someone engages you, by all means feel free to reply. In fact, I'm tempted to add to BSF a section "Communicating with Conservapedia admins on talk pages", citing Matthew 7:6 "neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Just kidding.

As for editing actual article pages, I think you know how, but, to reiterate, do not change anything above the table of contents. Do not delete anything below the table of contents. But you can move stuff around, and put in true statements, and put false statements into context. If there is something in the article that you absolutely can't stand, that's what rebuttal pages are for.

Keep up the good work. SamHB (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2016 (EDT)

I agree and what you wrote is a great improvement. Richardm (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2016 (EDT)