User talk:DavidB4/Archive 2

From Conservapedia
< User talk:DavidB4
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 18:51, June 14, 2021. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2 created on 23:09, 8 May 2017 (EDT)

Contents

Thanks

Thanks for creating the Ubuntu Christian Edition article. I believe I am going to install that on a computer. I also think I am going to install Xiphos on a computer.

In addition, I may try out CometBird. A quick suggestion: When you create articles like this, I would put in the software's greatest strengths and weaknesses. It seems to me the greatest strength of CometBird is its greater speed than Firefox. Here is a cool browser you may like by the way: Comodo IceDragon. I rarely use Firefox now. Conservative (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2016 (EST)

You're welcome, and thanks for letting me know! I'm glad those pages were a little helpful! You're right--having the Pros and Cons is a good idea. Honestly, I don't know enough about some software to do that, but I'll see what I can do. The main problem I foresee in trying to list Pros and Cons is that those are somewhat subjective, and can vary. For example, Opera had what I thought was a great browser for a while (since then, they switched to the Chromium engine) but some thought it was terrible. What works well for one person, doesn't always work the same way for another. None the less, I'll see what I can do. Perhaps looking up a number of other reviews for the software would be advantageous. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit. I'll see if I can start adding those sections to at least some of the pages. Thanks for the suggestion!
I think I might have heard of Comodo IceDragon before, but I'm not sure. I'll definitely add it to my list and see what I can do. Thanks for that suggestion as well! --David B (talk) XX:xx, 26 February 2016 (EST)
I've made a very simple page for Comodo IceDragon. I don't know much about it, but I'll try it a bit more in depth if I can and try to expand the page somewhat. As always, feel free to add/edit/remove if you want.--David B (talk) XX:xx, 26 February 2016 (EST)

Vandal

A vandal on the loose. [1]

He, Rahulbrown, and Josephkocher might also be one and the same person. U.U (talk) XX:xx, 27 February 2016 (EST)
Thanks for the info--I guess I'm too late though. I'll try to keep an eye on Rahulbrown, but he/she doesn't seem to have done anything yet, so I can't just ban 'em I don't think. Thanks for the info! --David B (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (EST)
Rahulbrown has been blocked now, but the user I just told you of seems to have vanished instead of being blocked. I wonder why.U.U (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2016 (EST)

It could be that he gave up, but I'd sooner suspect that he had multiple accounts. Another one was banned, and with it his IP address. Now he can't log in to any other accounts, so he's gone even though the others are still open. It's just speculation, of course, but that's what I suspect.--David B (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2016 (EST)

Archive

Just F.Y.I., I've created an "archive" to hopefully fix or at least move the problem of signatures not being placed, and section edits not working properly. --David B (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (EST)

Banks thanks

Thank you for your edits. One editor seems to have left a trail of red links and I appreciate you pipe-ing them to their correct target. JDano (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2016 (EST)

You're welcome! Yes, some people do that a lot. I can understand when a wiki first starts out, that this can be a good idea. By now, however, that really should be avoided--especially when the page desired already exists under another name.
You seem to be doing a great job of both writing and editing--thanks! --David B (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2016 (EST)
I must admit, though, that I still sometimes do this when there is a page I really think should be made. If no one else does it, though, I usually plan to go back and make these myself. --David B (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2016 (EST)

Photo Upload Request

Could you please upload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady#/media/File:James_Brady_1986.jpg it is public domain, and I want to add it to the James Brady article? Many thanks for your assistance. JDano (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2016 (EST) Could you please upload https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neil_Cavuto.jpg It is CC SA and must be attributed to freddthompson https://www.flickr.com/people/9313013@N04 on the upload page. Yes, Fred Thompson! Thanks, JDano (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2016 (EST)

No problem--I've uploaded both: James Brady and Neil Cavuto. I certainly don't mind personal requests, but just in case you don't know, Conservapedia does have an image upload request page here. However, I certainly don't mind being asked directly. Have a great day! --David B (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2016 (EST)

Please upload https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrite#/media/File:Neuron_Hand-tuned.svg It is CC SA and must be attributed to Quasar Jarosz. Thanks, JDano (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded! It is named "Neuron Hand-tuned.svg.png" and located here: [2] --David B (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2016 (EDT)

re: abortion and evolution article

Please feel free to completely revise or partially revise the Abortion and evolution article. I restored the article so now it's up to you to make it a encyclopedic article. I didn't have a chance to review the article and I am leaving that up to you along with any changes to the article.

Photo upload request

We have added a bio for Merrick Garland. Could you please upload the official photo, which is not copyrighted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#/media/File:Merrick_Garland.jpg Thanks, JDano (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (EDT)

Nice work! I've uploaded it under the name "Merrick Garland.jpg". [3] --David B (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2016 (EDT)
Thank you. How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract#/media/File:Cataract_in_human_eye.png JDano (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
You're welcome! I've uploaded the second one named as "Cataract in human eye.png" [4]
Thanks for all your continuing work! I've been busy lately, so I haven't been able to do much, but I'll try to keep checking at least once a day in case you have other upload requests. Have a great day!--David B (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (EDT)
Thank you for all your help. It is great working with you. JDano (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
You're welcome--let me know when there's anything else I can do!--David B (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yunnan_in_China_(%2Ball_claims_hatched).svg Please. You can shorten the name of the uploaded file  :-) JDano (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded under the name "Yunnan in China.png" and located here: [5] --David B (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. JDano (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2016 (EDT)
Any time! --David B (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2016 (EDT)
How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee#/media/File:Leland_Yee.jpg JDano (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2016 (EDT)
Uploaded! [6]
Next up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#/media/File:Anthony_Weiner,_official_portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg Thanks, JDano (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2016 (EDT)
Uploaded! [7]
Next up: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gitmo_Aerial.jpg which was taken by the Federal Government and is not copyrighted. Thanks.

Uploaded! [8] --David B (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

Animated GIF, requires attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Animated_gun_turret_with_labels.gif JDano (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
Uploaded! [9] --David B (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
I installed it in Naval guns but we lost the animation. Could you please try again in a way that keeps the animation? JDano (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
I see what you mean. On the image page it says "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated." I don't quite understand why, but it seems CP is set up that way. If you set it to 700px or more, it does show the animation. However, that is huge for something like this. I'll do a little mor experimentation, but it doesn't look too hopeful. I suppose we could ask an admin... --David B (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2016 (EDT)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mitch_Kapor_(Pic_1).jpg requires attribution. Thank you. JDano (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded--You're Welcome! [10] --David B (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2016 (EDT)

How about File:Electromagneticwave3Dfromside.gif requires attribution. JDano (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2016 (EDT)
Uploaded! [File:Electromagneticwave3Dfromside.gif] It looks like this one can be a "thumbnail" and still have the animation work, since it is smaller. If it does work for you, though, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --David B (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

Thank you. I have two more: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hammer_mill_open_front_full.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goliath_Poldermolen.jpg JDano (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

There is also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_implicated_in_the_Panama_Papers.svg which should be attributed to "JCRules". JDano (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

I hope I am not imposing by making these three requests. JDano (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

Not at all--I'm happy to help! Just let me know if/when you want any more! --David B (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
I did not see them, where are they? JDano (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
Ahh... whoops! Sorry about that! I didn't even see you most recent request, just the comment. (This section is getting a little messy..maybe that's why?) I've uploaded it implicated in the Panama Papers.png|here.

Many thanks, but the other two - windmills and grinding mill? JDano (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

Opps again! I need to do more reading and less skimming/skipping! Here are those two: [11] [12]

How about this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Flute.jpg For the Silver article. It has a picture of a raw crystalline blob; I want to show silver in a more refined state. SamHB (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

I'd be happy to upload that, SamHB, but I see we already have a flute. Is that one suitable, or would you like the one you linked to? --David B (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
That will do just fine. Even if the lip plate is made from another element 32 slots higher in the periodic table. SamHB (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
Alright, well you do have a point (and I'd be happy to upload the other). It's up to you.
I was joking. Many substances go into musical instruments. That picture is fine. Thanks. SamHB (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
Alright, I couldn't tell for sure but that's true, they are in no way made of a single material. --David B (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

Categories

Thank you for your work on category clean up. If you put an article in a subcategory, it should not also go in the category. So, articles in Category:United States Law should not be placed into Category:Law or Category:Laws. A user who did not understand the tree-structure of categories added a lot of category tags in 2014-2015 that messed everything up. A category should not be a subcategory of itself. Also, if categories A B and C are subcategories of category X. Then do not create a circle by placing X as a subcategory of A B and C. Thanks, JDano (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (EDT)

I'm glad to do what I can, though perhaps I'm getting lazy...categories are easier than writing.
I thought I'd read this somewhere, but I wasn't absolutely sure, so it's good to know. I've been doing a sort of mass-audit of categories, so it's a little hard for me to check where every category is in the tree, but I'll try to keep an eye out for this kind of issue. Thanks for the info! I have been finding some oddities, like Amazon.com being a subcategory of commerce, but commerce also being a subcategory of Amazon.com. On the one hand, I think "Why did people miss this?!?" but on the other hand, a wiki a a big place, and we don't have as many active editors as WP. I can't fix it all, but if I can straighten out some of it, maybe that will help. In the mean time, sorry to everyone who watched the recent changes page for the edit flood! --David B (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2016 (EDT)
As I recall, either you or JDano created a little page of guidelines for categories. As a subpage of your user page or talk page. I can't find it now, perhaps because of all the changes you made, that cluttered up RC, for which you apologized above. I forgive you of course, but can you tell me where it is? I have some comments I'd like to add. I want to create a link to it on my own page. I think that page can become a generally useful tool. SamHB (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
JDano Made that, and it's located here: User:JDano/TARlist. We're glad to have you back! :) --David B (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
Thanks. This is of vastly more general importance then just TAR. It looks like useful editing guidelines in general. I'm going to see what I can do about moving it (or its non-TAR-specific content) to a more general place.
I actually have a specific issue with the "only in the lowest-level category" rule. I came a cross an exception a while back. I'll bring it up as soon as I catch my breath. SamHB (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2016 (EDT)
Good idea--I agree, TAR is one contributor, but not the only. General cleanup is a good idea along the same lines throughout CP.
By the way, I'm probably going to be fairly busy for the rest of this weekend, so I may not be responding promptly from not on. --David B (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2016 (EDT)

TAR clean up

Glad you are pitching in. Please consider User:JDano/TARlist. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2016 (EDT)

Thank you, as well! I haven't much time now, but I skimmed over your list, and it looks pretty good. Thanks! (DavidB4 (talk) xx:xx, 1 April 2016 (EDT))
I just left a note on JDano's talk page, which please see. SamHB (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2016 (EDT)

Dear DavidB4, while I appreciate the time you took in writing Gun nut, it completely duplicates the existing Gun enthusiast page. Could we possibly merge the two and then have a redirect from Gun nut to Gun enthusiast? Thanks, JDano (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2016 (EDT)

Yes indeed we could. I should have done more looking before I wrote. I'll see what I can do, but if you get there first, feel free to merge them your self. Thanks for pointing this out! --David B (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2016 (EDT)

For God's sake! What was the matter with this person?

So I was doing a routine look at RC, and I came across your change to Battery (electrical). You're right; it needs more work. But I noticed that you de-wikilinked the various sizes: "AAA", "C", "D", etc. I immediately thought "This looks like the work of TAR." Sure enough, it was. He was planning to have a page titled "C", about the uses of size C batteries? What was it going to say? Something like "C is a size of batteries that you will use when you cash in your 401K to buy a lifetime supply of batteries, along with guns and bullets, so you can spend the rest of your life holed up in Idaho waiting for the zombie apocalypse gun-grabbers"? Did he not bother to look and see that there is already a "C" page, about the programming language? Similarly for "D". He apparently didn't bother to look—or did he?—and see that there was a page about the one-letter abbreviation for the Democratic party.

But "AAA" was most telling. (Plain "AA" was just a redlink.) His "AAA" link was to a page about, among other things, the American Automobile Association. And who wrote that page? TAR did. He linked to that knowing full well that the page was about other things!!

I'm going to create the "Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles" page. And it will have a few things to say about wikilinks. The things I cited above are not the only instances of this kind of stuff that I have seen.

SamHB (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

TAR is a very sticky substance. Not easily completely removed.Conservative (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (EDT)
On my first edit of that page, I missed the problem entirely. I didn't even check, thinking "They wouldn't possibly link to just the text shown—they must be piped." Haha! Funny joke! The moral of this story: never over-estimate the planning behind some pages and their content. Thanks for going ahead with making that guide. It could be a helpful checklist to reference and point to for sure.
Cons, I have to agree. TAR has its uses, and in some cases is difficult to replace. In other ways, it can really make a mess. Not to be too hard on him, though, I'm sure he's not the only one to make mistakes like this. --David B (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2016 (EDT)
SamHB, see: User talk:User: SamHB/How to create and maintain high-quality articles. Conservative (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2016 (EDT)
I see a few things I'd like to tweak on that list, but which one is currently in use? User:JDano/TARlist, User talk:User: SamHB/How to create and maintain high-quality articles (which has a space in the link it should not), or Essay:How to create and maintain high-quality articles which does not seem to exist? --David B (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

I moved SamHB's version to the bottom of User:JDano/TARlist. And then I deleted the version that I created along with its talk page. You two can work the rest out. Conservative (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

OK, I've overwritten my current version in situ (love them Latin expressions) in the usual place, User:JDano/TARlist. We can work on it there. SamHB (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Alright, thanks! --David B (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

As you may have seen, there was a delightful dialog between me and Cons late last night, as he repeatedly moved pages around and otherwise created edit conflicts for me. I asked him to pause and give me a 15 minute window in which I could tell him what I was doing (and in fact completely agreeing with his objections), but he just moved things around some more and created more edit conflicts. He seemed to be acting as though he hadn't seen my request for a pause, even though he was making edits to the very same pages. He wouldn't acknowledge me. He just moved the discussion to yet another page. I posted a request on that page with subject line "PLEASE STOP AND ACKNOWLEDGE" in all caps. He still didn't acknowledge my request that he stop moving pages and creating edit conflicts with me. So I gave up for the night, as I had said I would do if he didn't acknowledge.

He did actually stop messing with this, and go on one of his charming all-night editing sprees. 163 edits, by my rough count. So I suppose that's all the "acknowledgement" we can expect from this person. Though, as soon as you posted your "which one is which?" message this morning, he came back. And moved stuff around some more. You see, he saved my text in a page that he created, titled "User:User: SamHB/How to create and maintain high-quality articles" and "User talk:User: SamHB/How to create and maintain high-quality articles". I attempted to edit that, and the software said (not surprisingly) "User account "User: SamHB" is not registered. Please check if you want to create/edit this page." This guy doesn't even know how user page titles work.

So I was planning to put a delete notice on those pages, hoping that some poor soul would come along and delete those. If necessary, I was going to fill it with very unseemly material as an incentive to delete it. It wasn't necessary; Cons deleted the pages a short time ago, moving my draft back to the "TARlist page. I wrote my draft over that, without getting an edit conflict.

So maybe things have settled down a bit. I just checked RC in another window, and things seem to have settled down. We should work on the page there—I see that you are already doing that. I may make another attempt to move the page into the Conservapedia main space between 12 midnight tonight and 00:05 in the morning. SamHB (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Sounds like fun! Well, as long as we are all editing the correct page, and not conflicting with each other, I guess It's "all good." As far as moving this to a "Conservapedia:" title, I think Cons asked that we tell him when it is ready, and he will decide if it's ready or not. I'd be inclined to do that, rather than just trying again...we don't want to antagonize (or at least I don't), after all. Up to you, though. Anyway, I still see a lot of TAR specific stuff in it, so we have some work to do. I'm keeping pretty busy elsewhere today, so I may not be around to help much, but I'll do what I can.--David B (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2016 (EDT)
I think the thing to do is, first, make the article an unequivocally high-quality thing. (It pretty nearly already is.) Then we can probably move it, or get it moved, in a way that doesn't cause Cons to be destructive. SamHB (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (EDT)
May I ask, when David B looks at each page, does he see a "move" tab at the top? If so, he has the power to move (i.e., rename) pages, while preserving the page history. JDano (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2016 (EDT)

SamHB, you're probably right, that might work. Like you said, we just need to make it good first (which it is well on its way to being)
JDano, I do not have Move permissions. I believe that is a right restricted to full Admins only. We can either ask Cons to do it, or just use Copy+Paste. --David B (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2016 (EDT)


Welcome to TARist Russia, I mean the Pacific Northwest, I mean User:JDano/TARlist. I appreciate all that you do. JDano (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2016 (EDT)

Errm....thanks! I'll try to improve it if I think of something, assuming you don't mind. If you disagree with any of my edits though, feel free to change or undo them.

Picture Upload Requests

Could you please https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skyline_of_Plano_Texas.jpg with attribution to Danny20111993 and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_Austin_From_Congress_Street_Bridge.jpg with attribution to Daveydickler. JDano (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded! [13] and [14] --David B (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abilene_from_the_Enterprise_Building.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amarillo_Texas_Downtown.jpg Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded: File:Abilene_from_the_Enterprise_Building.jpg and File:Amarillo_Texas_Downtown.jpg --David B (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FireExtinguisherABC.jpg Photo by Dante Alighieri and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dana_White_headshot.jpg Photo by Justin Moore JDano (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded: File:FireExtinguisherABC.jpg and File:Dana White headshot.jpg --David B (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks. How about: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boise,_idaho.jpg attributed to Lordchadwick79 JDano (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2016 (EDT)

You're welcome. Here's this next one: File:Boise, idaho autumn.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MREsingleveggie.gif attribute to Bahamut0013 and https://www.flickr.com/photos/vaduva/18674659564/in/photolist-usdvF3-usdQa7-usonjH-8fRdg3-8fMXRe-8LiSgr-8fMXzn-4WChsi-8fMXrR-8fMXMP-57SxmD-4WCiwv-8fMXLF-8LiMTt-8LmSK7-4WCpHv-8LiTkz-8fRcXw-4WCaPc-8fMXGP-6AMzek-4WFXGL-4WCfvg-8qxVDK-4WGBjw-4WCkwg-4WGsif-8LmSi9-4WCcBV-8fMXKg-4WFYN7-8fMXDe-9mW1B1-57QVNT-4WFV6u-4WCotX-8fRdo3-8fRcWU-9mPDAq-8fRd65-4WGCgW-8fMXwB-8fMXBT-4WGzmb-4WGx2o-8LiVzv-4WCc9r-8fRdxN-4WCiUM-4WGJqj attributed to Virgil Vaduva CC-BY 2.0. JDano (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded: File:MREsingleveggie.gif and File:Porcfest 2015.jpg --David B (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polemount-singlephase-closeup.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transformer3d_col3.svg please. 22:55, 20 April 2016 (EDT) Please don't forget the diagram too. Thanks, JDano (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2016 (EDT)

You're right on top of this, so I guess I don't really need to post the links. Anyway, here they are: File:Transformer-polemount-singlephase-closeup.jpg and File:Transformer3d_col3_XML_stripped.jpeg. The latter had some file problems, so I needed to adapt is somewhat. It might have lost some quality, and also (by design) SVG data, but I think it should work. --David B (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2016 (EDT)

Please upload: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bug_de_l'an_2000.jpg attribute to Bug de l'an 2000 JDano (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

Done! File:Bug de l'an 2000.jpg --David B (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

Please https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarlMenger.png public domain due to age of photo. JDano (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2016 (EDT) Also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20111102_Incendie_Charlie_Hebdo_Paris_XXe_07.jpg attribute to Pierre-Yves Beaudouin JDano (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded! File:CarlMenger.png and File:Incendie Charlie Hebdo Paris XXe 07.jpg --David B (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bisphenol-A-Skeletal.svg JDano (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded after conversion File:Bisphenol-A-Skeletal.png --David B (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Please: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C60-rods.png ==JDano (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded: File:C60-rods.png. Sorry for the delay--I will be more busy that usual for the next week or two, so I may take longer to respond. --David B (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Please: File:Guy Kawasaki at Wikimania 2015 - 2.jpg JDano (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Uploaded: File:Guy Kawasaki at Wikimania 2015 - 2.jpg --David B (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Could you upload https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_Rings_(Cropped).jpg#mw-jump-to-license I think it's ok in terms of copyright, thanks Richardm (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

It's in Public Domain, so that's fine. Creative Commons licensed images are also acceptable. I've uploaded it here: File:Einstein Rings (Cropped).jpg --David B (TALK) 16:09, 21 September 2016 (EDT)

The page has been moved.

The page formerly known as the "TARlist" has been moved to its new home Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles, thinks to administrative intervention by JPatt. SamHB (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Nice! Alright, thanks for the update! --David B (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[15]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.Conservative (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Nice! When you make so many enemies (both vandals and not) we must be doing something right! I hope most of those are not DDoS hits.... ;)

Thank you as well for your continuing work! Did you by any change get my question on your messages page?--David B (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

I just saw it and replied. Second, I don't think I will be checking that mailbox again for an extended period. My apologies for any potential inconveniences.Conservative (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Okay, thanks for the response, and that's fine if you will not be--I know that you have other things going on. The number of active admins I know of seems to be dropping, but I'm sure Jpatt can help, and probably Aschlafly as well. No worries! --David B (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

response to recent message you sent me

Hi, I have a question. I know CP allows users to import articles which they alone have created on other wikis. Do I assume correctly that CP also has no problem with the author exporting his/her article to another wiki, as long as that other wiki does not mind? I have no immediate plans to do so... I have yet to contribute on any wiki other than CP.--I'm just wondering.
Thanks! --David B (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2016 (EDT) Thanks! --David B (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

Please see: Conservapedia:Copyright. If you have any further questions, please contact User: Aschlafly. Conservative (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
Thanks, I'd looked at that but still wasn't quite sure. I could try asking Mr. Schlafly--I don't know if he'll respond. Again, thanks! --David B (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
I think you can do it. You can ask Mr. Schlafly if you want further reassurance. Conservative (talk)
Alright, thanks! --David B (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2016 (EDT)

Nice job on Fluoride JDano (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Thanks, and you as well--you're right, a claim shouldn't be stated as fact when it is not certain.--David B (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Photos

The replacement of the owl pic had to do with maintaining a difference between us and Wikipedia. As much as possible, try to go to sites like Flickr, and look for those photos on any given subject that have been released to Creative Commons for free use. The idea here is if Wikipedia has it on their page, look for something different. Karajou (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

Okay, that makes sense--thanks for the explanation. I actually didn't realize WP has used that photo, I just picked it from the list on WikiMedia, but I should have checked. Still, though, it's from the WP giant, so that's not the best in any case. I sometimes try to get images from archives.gov or loc.gov, but they have a limited selection. My problem with using Flickr has been finding license info, but I recently found [16] which should help. I'll see if I can find more diverse images in the future using that. Also, thanks for adding a sizable body section to that page--again, I'm not a bird person so I didn't dare, but it needed to be done. There seem to be a number of bird pages like that, with only the side template. --David B (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

re: User:JayHarper

re: User:JayHarper

He was a parodist. I deleted a few of his articles. If you have time, please go through some of his past edits. Conservative (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Okay, will do. --David B (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2016 (EDT)
I am having a little difficulty telling if what he says is true. I don't know a lot about foreign politics, so things like this and this may or may not be correct. However, I'll keep looking through. --David B (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2016 (EDT)
Update--Much of what I'm seeing are beneficial changes, so I'm not reverting most of it. In some cases (like on Homosexual rights advocacy) this user delete a paragraph which should have but did not have a reference. I'm not sure that's what I would have done, but should this be reverted? There really should be a source on that. --David B (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

Troll/Vandal

David,

You might, when you get the chance, want to check out the new user WillardMR. He's made three edits, all of which appear to be vandalism.--Whizkid (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing this out--I've banned him. --David B (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

re: Much improved the article the atheist troll added

I much improved the article that the atheist troll added. Now it is a more humorous and coherent essay. Thanks for adding the delete tag. It forced me to read the article more closely and add additional content. Conservative (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2016 (EDT)

Err, you're welcome! Thanks for the improvements. Somehow atheism resulting in bland food improved only by hot sauce and horse meat did'nt make any sense, but I'm glad you could make something of it. I assume this page was a jab at you and your work on "atheism and ____" pages. He/she even used a similar style to your writing, I noticed, although it in their case, it didn't make any sense to me.--David B (talk)

scripts/bots

Ed Poor has put in an appearance, though it's essentially just to tell us that the guard dog did not survive a wiki update. See User_talk:Ed_Poor. SamHB (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for the notification! I responded, and will see where it leads. --David B (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted

Account promoted to include "move" and "protect" rights. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Oh--Thank you very much! I'll do my best to put them to good use! --David B (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2016 (EDT)

Bot account promoted to "bot" and "SkipCaptcha".--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

Thank you! I will give it a try. --David B (TALK) 19:00, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Update: The bot seems to be working, but has a fairly serious bug I need to work out. I'll try another run after I get that fixed, if it is possible. I think I have all I need account-wise, for now. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 20:25, 22 June 2016 (EDT)
Thanks for your update and for your efforts.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

Congratulations. A well-deserved promotion. JDano (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

Thanks! --David B (TALK) 23:32, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

Message from Pious

Thanks for your constructive criticism. I agree wholly with your first two points. As for the last two, keep in mind that Rastas believed Haile Selassie was literally Jesus- one speech by him can shock them out of racism. As far as I can tell, their purpose now is believing they're currently living in the Book of Revelations, since they also believe Christ has returned. -Pious

You're welcome, I'm glad to help! I know very little about the group, but your explanation makes sense. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to briefly mention those points, in case someone as clueless on the topic as myself comes through.
Also, I moved your message down to the bottom since this is where new post are usually placed. Of course you wouldn't have known that, so it's fine. Also, when you leave a message, it's a good idea to place --~~~~ at the end of your post. This is replaced by your "signature" and a time stamp. To make this a little easier, there is a button on the top bar of the edit box, just to the right of B and I buttons (for bold and italics) which looks something like a writing pencil. Clicking this places your signature where your cursor is currently placed. --David B (TALK) 01:27, 17 July 2016 (EDT)
Done. Your guidance has been very valuable to me. Thank you and God bless you. -Pious
I've noticed your to-do list update in the Recent changes section of this site, and I further thank you for taking a personal interest in guiding me. --Pious (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2016 (CDT)
Any time! I'm a bit too tired to look it over right now, but I'll try to take a closer look in the morning. --David B (TALK) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (EDT)
Also, Thanks for your continuing contributions! --David B (TALK) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (EDT)

Nice job purging that vandal! I don't get why trolls (liberal and otherwise) think they can vandalize this site with any efficacy when all they have to do is look at the recent changes section to show it ain't going to work. I will say this about PayPal though: they're a liberal organization that can literally take away all your money in their system for no reason under their Terms of Use. That's why I direct-deposit anything I earn on eBay immediately. --Pious (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2016 (CDT)

Whoa!!!! Are you saying that, under the terms of use that we all click through, Paypal can steal your money? That goes far beyond whether its CEO is liberal (which I consider irrelevant) or whether he is gay (even more irrelevant; sorry PeteyT). I'm not disagreeing with your assertion; I know nothing about this. Can you do some digging and write up an article on the subject? SamHB (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2016 (EDT)
All you have to do really is Google "paypal stealing" and the search results will blow up with examples of this and similar things happening. I'm heading to bed for work tomorrow but making and citing a page on this should be pretty easy. --Pious (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2016 (CDT)
Thanks--SamHB certainly helped by pointing it out, too! I don't think they care that vandalism isn't effective. They just keep going and going at it. I have no problem banning them and cleaning up, but I think the idea it to wear us down. That's why I really want to get a watchdog bot running, which takes care of most vandalism automatically. With no human element involved in vandalism prevention, there really will be little point in their continuing.
I do agree about PayPal--they really are not a friendly company. A reason I was aware of to dislike them is that they to not allow the purchase or sale of firearms through them. I did not know the ToS allowed for fund confiscation! That just goes to show, you really do need to read the fine print! --David B (TALK) 01:09, 22 July 2016 (EDT)

The (non-existent) page on sodomy has me confused. It's on the most wanted list (which I want to contribute to because I'd like to win the contest for most new pages created), yet also something the admins seem to seek preventing from existing. I found this out after I went to edit it due to having legal knowledge on the matter, specifically Lawrence v. Texas since the latter is where I live. I can't. Why is this? --Pious (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2016 (CDT)

Sorry for the delay in response. I've been working more than usual, so I haven't been able to get on for a few days.
I see what you mean, that page title is protected. This is probably the case because vandals like to make explicitly and grotesquely descriptive stub articles on topic such as this. Conservapedia was started as a family-friendly wiki especially for homeschoolers. It was probably considered inappropriate to have an article on such a topic. However, a certain editor has been doing a far amount of writing on sexual sins, so this decision may have been reversed. You could try asking Andy Schlafly, since he is really in charge of such decisions. However, I noticed that there is a page on Lawrence v. Texas. Perhaps you could at least look that over and see if there are improvements which could be made. Unfortionately, someone would already need to know about the case to search for it, so I'd think it would be better to make Sodomy to some kind of link bank, which does not explicitly describe it, but does link to relevant articles. I hope this helps! --David B (TALK) 23:47, 7 August 2016 (EDT)
I added a section to this page below on An Article About Sodomy, not wishing to put something new into an old section. (Thunkful2 (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

I'm not entirely sure why, but I've noticed that I tend to be locked out to six edits per day- this is likely the last of them. It might be because Andy apparently thinks a single reversion of an edit of mine by Conservative in good faith four years ago is enough to red-flag me. I know Andy has the final say in everything here, but could you bring it up to him? Preferably a week from now because I know he's mourning the loss of his mother right now. --Pious (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

I miscounted- this is six. Please visit the Sociopath page and consider my suggestion. --Pious (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2016 (EDT)


That sounds odd! I could be poorly informed, but I'm not aware of any such mechanism in place to limit the number of edits by a user. What specifically happens if you try to make more that six edits each day? Do you by any chance get a message telling you about a loss of session data?
Also, I replied to your question on Sociopath --David B (TALK) 22:55, 6 September 2016 (EDT)
The tab on the top changes from "Read | Edit | Add topic | View history" to only the former and latter after six edits. Also, your source is wrong- I can tell you that my own psychopathy in my past manifested itself from my upbringing, and there were zero genetic links to it. The term for anti-social personality disorder spans chronologically from sociopath, to psychopath, to anti-social depending on which version of the DSM you're reading. --Pious (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2016 (EDT)
I'll look into the issue you're having as best I can, though I really don't know a lot about the finer parts of CP's administration. As for the psychological disorders, I really know nothing more than can be found by a web search, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. I assume you are correct, but I can't really offer any agreement, because everything I see says that they are different. You can either ask someone else, or since you are confident that this is true, you could just go ahead and rewrite and cite along the lines of what you are saying. It seems that while you have a good understanding of how the human brain works (or doesn't), I have a better understanding of how a computer's "mind" works. --David B (TALK) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (EDT)
I know how to query Google pretty well, so I can probably find a source or two showing the history and etymology of psychopathy, then rewrite it. As for my limitations on edits, this is a screenshot I took yesterday in the early morning. The absence of the edit option is rather outstanding, and this reply is the first edit I've been able to make since. As for our different skill-sets, computer "mind" stuff is all perfectly logical- computers literally do what you program to do, and errors can be narrowed down to bad programming or fried hardware. Human mind stuff generally takes experiencing, recovering from, and then helping people who manifest mental problems, a lot of which is irrational. Treatment of others requires understanding their thinking, making what they can't explain rational, then offering solutions. I confess that I was a Liberal before I reached the age of reason because of my parents, and I have plenty of experience with other psychological deviances because I lived through a lot of them. That all changed when I saw the Light of God, from going through the motions of pretending to be a Christian to actually being a true believer. I rejected most of my past, and found Christian answers for the few bits that lingered on (such as hedonism and sadism). Most people don't have to go off the deep end like I did- I consider myself analogous to the experience that changed Saul into St. Paul- but studying it all and reaching the (obvious) logically correct viewpoint of a Christian Conservative should get you there.

Edit: I noticed you went to another admin to sort this out for me. Thank you. --Pious (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

We all have God to thank for things--bless Him for his grace!
Since I don't have access to most administrator controls, I don't know exactly what options exist, so I thought I'd ask an admin. Of course, you can ask him too, or join in the conversation. He's sometimes a bit busy, but I'm sure he'll get a chance to respond eventually.
Since I know a few things about computers, I suggest that in the mean time, you try using CP with a different browser, which does not have any kind of ad block, cookie deletion, or any other privacy addon. I've never had a problem with CP like this, even though I use an ad blocker, but it's probably worth a try. They can sometimes interfere with websites. Also, I usually tend to respond to posts on my talk page sooner, but if you are having a hard time posting, feel free to contact me by E-mail, as well. My address is posted on my user page. --David B (TALK) 01:59, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Perhaps you've seen, but Jpatt suggests you try creating a new account to see if you have the same problem with that one. Please do also try a different browser, if you haven't already. --David B (TALK) 11:00, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

I'd rather not create a new account because of redundancy, but I found that turning off every single add-on and extension in Firefox still limited me to two edits yesterday, as did logging into this site via Internet Explorer. I could understand being on a short leash, because I've admitted to a very dark past and a dubious present, but I chose the name Pious for a good reason. I am redeemed under His glory and grace. --Pious (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
This is an odd problem for sure! That shouldn't happen as long as you are logged in. I and those I have spoken to know of no such intentional limitation. Here, a short leash means that you need to answer captcha for every edit, and can't edit in the middle of the night (well, technically morning). This may sound foolish, but when that happens, have you tried logging out, and back in? Also try asking it to remember you, if you haven't already. You can still log out manually afterwards. People are generally discouraged from using multiple accounts ("sock puppets") but due to "Extenuating circumstances" it might be alright. To be safe, it might be a good idea to ask first. (If you are unable to do so, you can e-mail me your question and I'll post it for you.)
It also seems unlikely that it's a browser issue, but you could try the Chromium browser, or something else which uses the same Blink engine, like Vivaldi or Google Chrome. If Firefox and IE couldn't do it, probably this won't work either, but it's something you could try.
Have you edited on any other wikis? If so, did they by any chance use MediaWiki, like CP and WP? --David B (TALK) 01:25, 3 November 2016 (EDT)

Yep, I'm still alive. I don't do much due to my new employment other than work, sleep, and prep for work. My days off are spent taking care of my mother. I'd just like to add that if one sees any Supreme Court case, one can both direct-link to the case itself, and easily find it with a Google site search for the Court's official site. For example, I found the official transcript of the case I just edited by Googling "gonzales v. raich site:www.supremecourt.gov". Google ain't so liberal when you make it behave. --Pious (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2016 (EST)

I'm glad to hear you're doing alright! That does sound like a rather monotonous schedule. However, it could be worse--you could be without a job, living on welfare, with your mother under the "care" and control of the state, so I guess I should say I'm glad to hear it. Regarding Google, you're right that it has its uses. They rarely actually blacklist legitimate websites, so you can still find what you need most of the time. I just try to avoid them, so as not to give them any more revenue from their biased system. However, I have used Google in rare cases, because they really do often seem to have the best/most spiders, and therefore the best results. In this case, though, it would probably work just as well if not better to use the is-site search on supremecourt.gov. I guess it doesn't really matter--whatever works.
Anyway, until next time, God bless! --David B (TALK) 23:09, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Spam

There are very many mediawiki websites. Many are neglected over time and become targets for spammers. They are trying to build up their google search rankings rather than getting customers from the reader base of the target website. So, they create articles with long improbable titles and hope that they stay up long enough to be discovered by the search engines. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia use "no follow" tags, but I am not clear that the search engine spiders ignore the links completely. That is, a spider might not visit the linked website, but might still add to its count for links it found to that domain name. In last night's case, the lonked domain name was youtube.com, so it really does not matter. The point is that once people discover that a wiki is "open" and unmonitored, they start swarming in, including using bots.

I recommend that you delete the entire spam page contents and replace it with {{spam}}. If an admin disagrees, they can revert your edit. I think that most spam is self-evident. (The exception was TAR, who spammed shamelessly, but was genial in his interactions with some admins.) However, if a page is sufficiently bad to warrant a speedy tag, it can also warrant a spam tag and deletion of the contents. JDano (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I know that is their intent, though in this case as you said, it indexing wasn't the goal, but rather clicking. I probably should have blanked the page, as I think I have done in the past, but I left it so Cons (who usually deletes on request) or whoever else could see that it really was spam. I believe someone complained previously when I blanked one, as well, so I didn't want to offend. I assumed that it would be deleted in a few hours anyway, long before a spider was likely to find it.
nofollow does ask search engine spiders not to follow and index the links on the page. Usually, they honor this request since if you don't want it indexed, they probably do not either. However, it does not literately prevent them from doing so. They can explore and index all they want, even with the tag in place. In my opinion, <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> should also be temporally applied to new pages, so that if a search engine does crawl CP immediately after spam is posted, it will not even be listed as a page on CP. Perhaps this concept could even be customized more, so that users with a certain privilege level (perhaps "edit") do not have this applied to their new pages. Of course, this would not protect from spam inserted into existing pages, but it seems to me that this would be better than nothing.
Anyway, back to your point, I probably should have blanked them, and will do so in the future unless I receive complaints. Thanks for the suggestion! --David B (TALK) 13:31, 21 July 2016 (EDT)

PeteyT

12 minutes total lifespan, and just 3 minutes from my notice to the final disposition. Not bad!! SamHB (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2016 (EDT)

Not bad at all! I was only keeping half an eye on R.C., so I'm not sure if I would have checked those pages unless you had flagged them. Now we just need an admin to delete those pages. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 00:21, 22 July 2016 (EDT)

re: a bug/glitch in your robot

I discovered that your cleanup robot sometimes messes up articles such as THIS INSTANCE. It did this for the Growth of global desecularization article.

And if I am not mistaken, it sometimes removes one of the characters to form a bracket around pictures (namely this character ] ) so the pictures do not show up. I think it did this for the atheism article and other articles (I recall fixing some of my other atheism articles after your bot ran).

At the same time, it does seem to be cleaning up a lot of things too. Conservative (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2016 (EDT)

Wow! Thanks for letting me know, I'll try to find that bug right away, and keep a better eye on it from now on. The style and cleanup rules are less developed than some other things such as typo checking, so I guess I need to do some work in that area, or stop using it for that purpose.
If you notice it acting improperly, please do feel free to temporally ban that account. Just please be careful not to also ban the associated IPs, since I sometimes use the same connection. That should work to immediately prevent more damage, and I can sort out the problem before it wrecks everything! --David B (TALK) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (EDT)
Sorry about not telling you about this matter sooner. I know you are making efforts to improve things and I didn't want to be a complainer/whiner/discourager.
I should have told you about this sooner as I strongly suspected that you have a good attitude and would welcome feedback to improve your efforts. Conservative (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2016 (EDT)
No apology necessary--I do just want to help. I'm just glad you checked on the edits it made and noticed! With it making so many edits, I can't check the bot's watchlist for post-edit changes, with how ever many many thousand pages listed there. I could slow it down, but hadn't since I saw no problems. Anyway, any further feedback/constructive criticism is welcome. It seems that so many short-term editors on CP have caused an unintentional lack of uniformity. That's the main reason I've been running stylistic fixes with the bot. Unfortunately, brackets still confuse it. Templates and forms wreak havoc on it, but even links and images do this. It doesn't understand image links, so what it sees is a wikilink within another wikilink. This is all together a bad idea, but it keeps deciding the first part must be an external link. Then.... things happen, as you know. I don't want to remove bracket detection, since there are a lot of stray, unclosed or unopened brackets and parentheses. However, I'll see if I can fix it up and narrow down the detection a bit. --David B (TALK) 13:57, 9 August 2016 (EDT)

Why that person was blocked after editing internet atheism

David,

Why that person was blocked after editing internet atheism

See: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Internet_atheism&diff=1271913&oldid=1271890

"Basement dwelling" was an intentionally idiotic category tag. Hence, the person was blocked.

In addition, television show and movie related entries are often parodist editor targets and the ex-editor generally focused on those articles. It wouldn't surprise me if there were parodist related edits to those articles. If you want to check his other edits that would be great. I generally don't watch television. Conservative (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2016 (EDT)

I certainly wouldn't have chosen that tag, but I see plenty of things here that fall into the category of "I wouldn't and I'm not convinced, but I'll let it go and stay focused." My assumption was that it was a good faith edit, just one I would not have done. I have heard that term before, in reference to the stereotype of a (usually teenage or Y.A.) person who lives in their (or their parents') basement and plays video games, "trolls," and does a variety of other undesirable things, while secluding themselves from reality. Though I wasn't sure if this quite fit, it may for some involved in the movement.
Anyway, I didn't think it an offense warranting a 5-year ban, so I thought I'd point it out, in case you missed it (which apparently you didn't). Had I been the one banning, I would have probably done it for months or even weeks, not years. However, perhaps I don't have the full picture. You have plenty of experience at this, so I expect you're right.
As for the TV, I really don't watch much either. Most of my free time I spend on here, instead. I'll probably take another look, but a cursory check revealed nothing suspicious to me. --David B (TALK) 22:39, 22 August 2016 (EDT)
If he got a job working for Encyclopedia Britannica putting category tags on their articles, do you think he would put "basement dwelling" on their "Internet atheism" article. I don't think he would. I have no regrets about my ban. I don't think Admins should be babysitters. Maybe in 5 years he will be more mature. Conservative (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

Account promotion request

David, could I please be promoted to Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement ? Thanks a lot. (Thunkful2 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

I cannot promote you, but I'll pass on your request. The human verification is a pain. Perhaps I'm poorly educated, but it frequently seemed to me that there were several possible answers, and I just needed to try each one until it worked. The person in charge of this is Andy Schlafly. --David B (TALK) 22:30, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
As requested, he has removed the requirement. Congratulations! Keep up the good work! --David B (TALK) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (EDT)
Thank you so very much. (Thunkful2 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

Article on Sodomy

I was contemplating starting an article with the title of Sodomy, when I came across a little discussion of it here by accident, someone saying he wanted to do an article by that name as he has legal knowledge of the subject. Then I saw the objection that Conservapedia was started for homeschoolers (who should not be exposed to such topics). But today, I don't know how children could avoid exposure to many topics formerly thought to be taboo. When I was a young boy going to the YMCA it was YMCA custom for everyone to swim naked! Thus the YMCA could become an attraction for sodomists. I was nearly raped by a man who was watching naked boys there; I had no idea what he was up to. For I knew nothing about sodomy, as the topic was hush hush. My mother once in a while mentioned "queers," but never told me what she was talking about. Children really have to be told in clear, uncensored terms about what sodomists do, for their own protection. We should not have false modesty and be afraid of the plain truth.

IMHO, there needs to be a frank article on sodomy using plain ordinary anatomical terms just like you use in an anatomy class. Using the plain words for the parts of the body (not slang or "membrum virile," etc.) is needed to expose the abomination which sodomy is, when there is no confusions with "love," but a clear verbal picture. Right away an unperverted mind reacts, "abomination."

"Homosexual" is a confounding term, as it may include, for example, males who merely prefer the company of males, as boys may do before puberty, with no sexual connotation. Some might use such a term for the apostle Paul who travelled only with men on his missionary journeys (no evidence of Paul having any sexual interest in other men whatsoever). I wish to see an article that clearly describes what sodomy is, explains the related Biblical terms, gives exegesis of the passages, traces the history of the relevant laws in the world, and presents the medical ramifications with that research -- all using frank anatomical language. (Thunkful2 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (EDT))


I agree that such information should be made available to children, when the time is right. The problem is that we don't know when that time is. All we can do is post it, and hope they find it when it is needed, not before. I think that most children (homeschoolers in particular) should be instructed by their parents, not some stranger, or even CP. However, I understand that this site will be used by more than homeschoolers, so I am reluctant to oppose the provision of a very moderate amount of such information, in sometimes vague terms for such protective and preventive reasons.
This decision to some extent hinges on whether we are trying to exist solely for homeschoolers, or for use as an all-purpose conservative resource. Those who have "clout" here seem to support the creation of such an article, but I can't be sure of the stance taken by the ones who have not yet spoken on the topic. It's your choice, but I don't think you'd get thrown out for doing so. I trust you would anyway, but just be very careful in how you write it, if you do. To be safe, you might want to ask a full administrator, or even Andy Schlafly himself.
I hope this helps --David B (TALK) 12:02, 24 August 2016 (EDT)
David, I told my son about what evil men would do to children when he was ~ 2 years old. IMHO: They really have to know about this. When I was about 14, a pervert at the YMCA could have raped me; I didn't know what they did. He wanted me to step into the back of his van with him! And a neighborhood boy wanted to "play with me" when I was a longer child. Children of very young age are vulnerable. And I never told my parents about any of this. If I should write it, I would like to be able to write forth-rightly; just tell it like it is. But if you think the leaders of Conservapedia might object to that, I of course would not attempt to defy them. I think that it is essential to the Sodomist Conspiracy to avoid talking about what they actually do, and that an essential part of combating this evil is to describe most clearly what they do; taking about sexual orientation, preference, and "love," obscures the issue. I home-schooled my children & neither in primary nor secondary grades did I sent them to a public school. But if you go to a church, they will learn things from other kids which I think is better they learn from their unashamed parents -- moreover, I think that reading it on Conservapedia would also be beneficial. And when they visit kids in church homes, they will get access to TV & internet -- perhaps access to internet via other children's cell phones where any & everything can be seen. BTW, I was going to discuss it with the "Pious" above, since he claimed legal expertise on the subject, but for some reason his posts on the subject look faded in his signature, & one cannot get to him by clicking on his name; so I suppose that he no longer is an editor here. -- At any rate, OK, I should clear it with the powers that be first. (Thunkful2 (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (EDT))
I believe it is possible to instruct young children on what to do and what not to (i.e., "Don't get in a stranger's vehicle," and "if he tries to force you, yell, kick, scream, and bite to get away and draw attention. Shout that this person is not your parent") without describing in explicit detail exactly why he might be doing it and what he want to do. Often times, "bad people wanting to hurt you" is enough to educate a toddler, for example. If questions arise, they should be answered honestly (some people are left completely embarrassed and speechless by a four-year-old; this doesn't help anyone) but carefully. Storks are not the answer to awkward questions, but the parent should be the one to carefully but properly explain. I dislike the idea of us just posting it for all to see, whether they are ready to know or not.
That said, Conservative is in favor of such an article (and articles on just about any other sexual sin, it seems). He would probably say that I am just embarrassed and not willing to speak on delicate topics. My motives are somewhat different than this, but regardless, he would support such a page. If you want to make one, I think the administration here would not have a problem with it. Just be a little careful to stay on the educational side of the fine line, and not the in-your-face unneeded detail side. As I said, I trust you would handle this well, especially since you've had a kid.
Lastly, Pious is still an active editor. He's set his signature to not link to his user page, but here it is. Again, you can always get other opinions. We know what one administrator (Conservative) thinks on this topic, so you may need to look no farther.
I hope this helps! We may not agree, but at least I hope I've explained fairly well. --David B (TALK) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

Howdy. Discuss this topic with me all you like- I've become quite talented in the subject of psychology, and have had the unfortunate experience of counseling victims of both gay and straight men and women after their being raped (sometimes serially and/or from pre-pubescence) many times. Thunkful12, your experience of nearly being lured to forceful sodomy ain't unique- sadly, out of the many rape victims I've known, the oldest so far at the time of first rape has been thirteen. I've only refrained from making an article on Sodomy because I literally can't, but I'm here for you.--Pious (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2016 (EDT)

Recent troll's spamming

Try not to be too concerned about this latest spam attempt. What is actually happening is just a sorry, hate-filled bigoted liberal who is proving us right every time about themselves...and he's too stupid to figure it out. Karajou (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I'm not worried, but thanks. It's laughable that they don't realize how badly they are hurting themselves. Clearly you are keeping a close eye on him, but I just thought I'd help where possible. --David B (TALK) 14:30, 25 August 2016 (EDT)

Rule 40

Thank you for all of your hard work. I addressed your licensing issue with a quote from the website inviting the reposting of the images. These images have also been uploaded to Instagram. JDano (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

Please try again. Thanks, JDano (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2016 (EDT)
Thanks for the additional info. I've uploaded it, as you have probably already noticed. There was something strange going on with the file, so I had to wait until I was able to convert it. Once again, JPEG saves the day. --David B (TALK) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (EDT)

User:Dimetrodont

This person was an obvious vandal, and was blocked 5 years ago, in 2008, so that block has expired. I recommend blocking him infinitely and deleting the page. But there are a few interesting points here:

  • People cite Wikipedia all the time. They cite extremely offensive sites also. Sites that are vastly at odds with the views of the CP admins, far more so than Wikipedia is. The reason for the extreme disdain of WP seems to be that, unlike those other sites, WP is a wiki, so people can edit it, but when fundamentalists or creationists attempt to insert their views on WP, those edits are reverted. There is no corresponding way to attempt to insert material into HuffingtonPost, so there is no corresponding level of complaint. The editorial stance of WP is just seriously at odds with the stance of the CP admins on matters of evolution, religion, and sexuality. WP is actually a rather reliable source for almost everything. The problems and scandals at WP are not surprising, given the site's size.
  • The cited Wikipedia article clearly states that mammals are not descended from dimetrodon. This person's crime was not in saying that they are, but in citing an article while making a claim about what the article says, when the article actually says the opposite. This practice is not that uncommon at Conservapedia. I've seen it a number of times. Usually it's just taking something out of context in a misleading way. But occasionally it's blatant falsehood such as this.
  • You should try not to overuse phrases like "incorrect liberal info". I frequently see the term "liberal" applied to things that have nothing to do with liberalism or politics. Whether mammals are descended from dimetrodons (they aren't) is a matter of science, not politics. It happens that acceptance of evolution is probably higher among liberals than among conservatives, but that doesn't make evolution a "liberal theory" any more than relativity is.
  • This person was blocked, back in 2008, by our friend the Conservapedia:Guard dog. It didn't look at the content, of course, but it noticed that he made 13 edits in 18 minutes.

SamHB (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

As always, thanks for the input! I'm sure sure if I have the authority to block him again, since I have not been a firsthand witness of his actions. Also, I hesitate to do indefinite IP blocks, since IPs get reassigned from time to time. Then someone who's done noting wrong may end up being blocked. However, at least a non-IP user block shouldn't do any harm.  :Regarding your other points:
  • They do cite it all the time, yes, and as you said, many other offensive and incorrect sites. I've even cited HuffingtonPost on occasion as well, for topics which are not controversial, so I'm guilty of this as well. I will say that for your first two points, it is just generally bad practice to cite a wiki such as Wikipedia when writing like this. I would be as opposed to citing WP (for anything other than that about PC itself) on CP, and I would be to citing CP on WP (for anything other than the last exclusion). I think some the the resistance to linking to WP comes from this, not just a dislike for WP itself.
  • I agree on not overusing "liberal," but in this case, I don't believe I misused it. I mean no offense to you, but not only do those who are politically liberal promote evolution, but also I believe those who are spiritually liberal. It is my belief (and that of many others as well) that theistic evolution is just an attempt to fit fake science into Christian beliefs. Ultimately, you end up back at plain old evolution, with just the idea of God as "The Great Clock-Winder." No matter the basis behind it, evolution is a new, liberal idea as a whole. Therefore, his support and promotion of evolution seems inherently liberal. Before Darwin, Creation was the only widely-accepted plausible explanation for our existence. Macro-evolution is, therefore, a progressive or liberal concept, which is now being supported by the majority of the western world. --David B (TALK) 23:16, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

Thanks for the block

Some people..... Disgusting. JohnSelway (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

Such people really need to find an actual hobby, like fishing, bicycling, or even video gaming. Anyway, thank you for requesting the block. I'm not always online, of course, but feel free to post on my talk page if you see someone needing a ban--that might catch my attention sooner. --David B (TALK) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

Question

Would it be OK to upload this image, or does the same situation apply with the other images? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

Also, would it be alright if you move the article Tim Lahaye to "Tim LaHaye" (the "H" should be capitalized)? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2016 (EDT)
I'm afraid the same thing does apply. Fair Use is very ambiguous, but it generally implies spontaneity, which can hardly be claimed for a wiki. WP gets away with much more liberal usage of copyrighted images than the law really seems to allow, so it could be argued that we can as well, but I don't think we should.
In general, try to look for images in the Public Domain or under a Creative Commons license. Conservative has a nice list of places to look for such images, in case that helps. --David B (TALK) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (EDT)
Moved to Tim LaHaye. Thanks for pointing that out! --David B (TALK) 22:53, 6 September 2016 (EDT)
Thanks for the tip and for moving the article! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

Some help

Would you please upload this image? Also, would you please create a redirect "Zwingli" for Ulrich Zwingli, and a redirect "Knox, John" for John Knox? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Also, would you please upload this image? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

I'll do the uploads A.S.A.P. I've created the redirects, but actually anyone can do that. Just create a page, and write #REDIRECT followed by a link to the desired page. In this case, for example, I just placed #REDIRECT [[Ulrich Zwingli]] in the new page "Zwingli." Cheers! --David B (TALK) 22:37, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

OK, got it. Thanks! In the meantime, would you also upload this image as well? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2016 (EDT)
Sorry to make things more complicated, but not all images on Flickr are usable. To search for usable ones, you'll need to select a license type. Un the upper left, click on the frop-down which says "Any License" and select on of the other options. I think anything but "Any" and "Marketplace" will work, but I always used "All Creative Commons." This image you selected from Flickr was copyrighted. I'll upload a WP one, if you wish.
The others are done:
--David B (TALK) 00:56, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
Thanks for the uploads! Hopefully this image will do. Also, would you please upload this? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
Sorry for piling more requests, but also these two, please. [17][18] --1990'sguy (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
No problem, uploaded:
Would you also please upload this: [19] ? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
File:Confederate Rebel Flag.svg.png
Thanks for your help! --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
One more thing: I'm thinking of requesting these two images ([20][21]), but I know that there are discussions going on right now on Wikipedia to place these images at the top of their respective articles. It looks like that they will eventually be placed at the top (in 10 days or so). Do you think that uploading these images here will make us look like a copy of WP and thus should not be used (I will note, however, that the current Trump image here is also at the top of his WP article right now)? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

You're welcome--I'm glad to help!
I don't think there's one right answer to your question, but in general you should pick whatever image is best. We probably shouldn't sacrifice quality just to be different, but if quality is not being lost, it probably would be better to pick something else. In this case, I'd say that if you can find something else just as good or better, use that. IF not, it's probably okay to use these. In my personal opinion, the Trump one you suggest is better than what we have. However, I think the Pence one we have now is good, and in fact, the lighting might be better than the WP one you mentioned.--David B (TALK) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

The Pence image we have now is good except for the fact that it is old, by at least seven years. A newer image would be nice in my opinion, even though it doesn't have to be that specific one. There are some other good Trump photos that I am tempted to request instead.[22][23] Is there any you prefer? Should I also ask a wider audience as well? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (EDT)
Good point about the Pence one--an update wouldn't be a bad idea then. As for Trump, I think either of those you just linked to would work. Personally, I like the more "professional" look of Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_13, but the "dramatic" look of Donald_Trump_(29273256122)_-_Cropped is okay too. Asking a bigger audience wouldn't hurt--you can certainly do that.--David B (TALK) 22:49, 10 September 2016 (EDT)

re: Sporadic Solvent

I thought Sporadic Solvent was a spammer who was pushing some solvent product. This was a bad assumption. I didn't know that he/she had made an edit.

I unblocked the person and restored the edit they made. Conservative (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Okay, thanks! The name does sound suspicions, buterhaps it's worth waiting until they do something harmful...I don't know. --David B (TALK) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
You are right. I was trigger happy in terms of my blocking in this case. Conservative (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
Well, it is a strategy that's usually effective. Anyway, thanks for straightening that out! --David B (TALK) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Deleting junk

I've left notes on the Herbert London and Walker cell talk pages about this phenomenon. These were "Ed Poor stubs[TM]". Ed Poor used to gather quotes that he found interesting, from various places on the internet, and rather than write them on Post-it notes or stick them on his refrigerator, he would stuff them into Conservapedia articles, often with no text whatsoever. Nothing to explain what it relates to. Most of those articles have been deleted by now, but you still come across one occasionally. I recommend deletion.

These are different from the Phagocytic vacuole page. That was a well-intentioned attempt to help Conservapedia become what it never became.

Because I expect those pages to be deleted soon, I am making a copy for David B's talk page.

SamHB (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

It does seem like there is little use for such pages. Perhaps he was in the mindset of everyone trying to manufacture as many pages as possible, as probably was attempted when CP was quit new. However, it seems that for CP's size, such pages are not really helpful. Rather than someone coming along later and adding to those pages, they've simply gotten "lost," without expansion. It might be a good strategy if people could cooperate on making such pages, but that's not happening. Deletion seems like the best option now. --David B (TALK) 16:43, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Question

Are you able to change the visibility of these two edits? [24][25] These are incredibly nasty comments. After having to deal with an earlier vandal today, I am almost tempted to ask for these rights myself. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Never mind, Conservative just did it. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (EDT)
Only full administrators/SysOps can hide edits. I'm an assistant SysOp, so I cannot, and of course, neither can you. You could try asking, but I doubt you would get anywhere. I'm not aware of any exceptions make allowing any non-admins to do it. Cons is usually good at hiding disgusting changes. --David B (TALK) 20:45, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

Do you think this user is a sock of the two accounts that we dealt with earlier today? The user created three decent articles, but also edited Bush (band) and created an AfD page for it. The overlap is suspicious. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2016 (EDT)

It is indeed suspicious, but I don't really know. Also, "Allstate" doesn't seem like a username someone would plan on using for a while. That particular account hasn't done anything overtly wrong, so I was leaving it alone, but it is pretty likely that it's a sock. --David B (TALK) 23:45, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
Karajou already deleted the articles. Yes, it was hard to say for sure whether those articles were fake or not. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2016 (EDT)
The ones on insurance companies didn't seem fake, but they might have been a distraction. Anyway, problem solved I guess. --David B (TALK) 00:03, 4 October 2016 (EDT)

Another question: a new user created the article Raheem Kassam today, but in their edit summary stated that they copied the article from a Wikipedia article that was recently deleted. Do our copyright rules still apply for deleted articles? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2016 (EDT)

I see no reason why they would not apply. Do we know if Mtj wrote that page, or has permission from those who did? Deleted or not, it's still plagiarism if the writer(s) didn't consent to it being posted here. Thanks for pointing this out! --David B (TALK) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (EDT)
Mtj still has not responded, so I'm tagging the page regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2016 (EDT)

Portrait

Hi. This article needs a real photograph-portrait in my opinion. My advice: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. I can't upload media files. - SteveVi (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Hello, I'd be happy to help, but the image uploaded must be in the Public Domain or licensed under Creative Commons. The images you linked to may qualify, but I can't read the text on the pages so I can't tell. Are there images anywhere which I can verify as usable? WikiMedia and Flickr and a couple of good sources. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 18:38, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
Hmm, I think we use the WikiMedia Commons. - SteveVi (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
Okay, I don't know much about him. Is this one good? --David B (TALK) 11:44, 10 October 2016 (EDT)
Yes, a good one. You can upload it. - SteveVi (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2016 (EDT)
Done--thanks for the suggestion! --David B (TALK) 22:50, 12 October 2016 (EDT)

Raheem Kassam

I started the Raheem Kassam article on Oct 6th, because there was no wikipedia article.

The editors at wikipedia.org had been repeatedly deleting the article on Kassam, claiming he was not important enough to merit an article. Now that he is a leading candidate to be the next UKIP leader, they appear to have given up. A wikipedia.org article on Kassam appeared on October 13th and appears to have stuck.

I got a lot of the text on the article from ( I believe ) the deleted wikipedia article. Who owns the text on deleted wikipedia articles? The current wikipedia.org article has none of this text - I put it here because the content needs to be included in the article in some form. People want to know more about him, and there is no readily available source ( as of Oct 6th ).

I did write the introduction, and was hoping that someone would rework the body of the article.

mtj, Oct 19th 2016. Mtj (talk)

Managed to reorganize somewhat by date. Some of the material from a few years ago can probably be shortened. There's a gap in 2011. I guess he took a sabbatical. Mtj (talk)

Apologies for not responding sooner--I'm usually more active here, but have been busy with other projects lately.
I have no problem with us having an article on him, and as I said, I'm glad you though of posting it here. However, even if Wikipedia deletes content, the content itself still belongs to the person (or persons) who wrote it. In this case, it sounds like you have the right to post the introduction, but everything else must be rewritten. I know it can a a pain, since there is already a good piece, but unless those who wrote it grant their permission, it cannot be used by us.

Wikipedia offers all of their content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. "ShareAlike" in no problem here, since Conservapedia has a much freer agreement (nearly Public Domain), but the Attribution aspect is difficult to cover, without writing "This article was copied from Wikipedia." However, Conservapedia does not allow articles to be copied from Wikipedia, unless the author of the copied work does so. Hopefully this makes at least a little sense. --David B (TALK) 12:39, 21 October 2016 (EDT)

There's another article, Dreams from My Real Father, that was copied over from Wikipedia by another user. I warned the user, but we should also watch this article to make sure it doesn't stay like this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2016 (EDT)
I noticed you taking care of that--thanks! I don't want to pounce on him/her, but you'r right, it shouldn't stay there. I don't know how long to wait, but probably we should flag it soon unless we get a response. --David B (TALK) 00:04, 2 November 2016 (EDT)

Official images

Do you know, or is there any way to find out, the licensing of these images: [26][27][28]? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Well, images created by the U.S. government are in the public Domain. Since the first image is from the governor's office, it should be fine to use. The other two are a little less clear. The second image is provided "Courtesy of the Museum of American History, Cabot Public Schools." Since provided by a government public school, it's possible (but not certain) that it might be usable as well. For that one, I'd want a second opinion. The third image is provided "Courtesy of the Arkansas Secretary of State's Office" so that's clearly a government work, and is in the Public Domain. --David B (TALK) 12:34, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
Yes, I found the two public domain images here. I will ask further for the third image. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2016 (EDT)
Okay, that's good at least. Sorry I can't be certain about the other. --David B (TALK) 16:45, 29 October 2016 (EDT)

Would you please move File:Asa Hutchinson Offical Governor Photo.jpg in order to correct my typo in "Official"? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

Done! --David B (TALK) 16:27, 30 October 2016 (EDT)

RE: Welcome

Thanks. --Idris (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

No problem--let me know if you need any help! --David B (TALK) 16:22, 5 November 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted

Added a feature to your account that makes undoing vandalism easier. Thanks for your efforts!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2016 (EST)

I already see it working--thank you! --David B (TALK) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Congratulations! --1990'sguy (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks --David B (TALK) 22:35, 29 November 2016 (EST)

Copied articles

All the articles User:Ylevental created or edited (Neurodiversity, Jonathan Mitchell, Thomas Sowell) appear to have been copied from Wikipedia. Also, I'm not sure if the writer of Dreams from My Real Father, who admitted to copying it from WP, is the author of not. This happened a while ago. In addition, do you think Raheem Kassam has been changed enough to stay on CP? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (EST)

I hadn't taken the time to check all of Ylevental's edits, so thanks for doing that. I'd say that Dreams from My Real Father should go--on WP, there are so many contributors that I don't think one person can claim it as theirs at any stage near where it is now. I'd also vote against Raheem Kassam--Plagerism check reports that it is 3% unique--and that could just be formatting. In my opinion, all of these should go, unless Ylevental responds soon. --David B (TALK) 17:50, 30 November 2016 (EST)
I just warned the users who created "Dreams from My Real Father" and "Raheem Kassam" that if they don't completely reorganize and re-word the articles, they will be deleted. If they don't change anything in the next few days, the articles definitely should be deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2016 (EST)
Thanks! I have too much going on to be of much help right now, I'm afraid. --David B (TALK) 21:53, 30 November 2016 (EST)
Not a problem! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2016 (EST)

Is Theological correlates a copied article? Also, the editors I messaged did not respond, I will tag the above articles for deletion soon. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2016 (EST)

At least half of it is, though some of it seems modified. I was suspicious anyway, since there were two failed registrations before he managed to get it. Probably the first 2 IPs were already banned. I'd say definately toss out the others, but we should probably give this one a little time.--David B (TALK) 22:48, 8 December 2016 (EST)
OK. We should mind his edits on other articles, just in case. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2016 (EST)
The "Theological correlates" article may be OK to have, but it is full of copy errors and bad formatting. I tried to improve it, but I am not very acquainted with the topic. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2016 (EST)
I'm in the same boat--I haven't even attempted to work on it, because I really don't know what it is talking about. I suppose we could ask Dataclarifier about it--he seems quite knowledgeable in such areas. Other than that, I don't think I have much input. It did looks sloppy, and does look better now. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 19:18, 12 December 2016 (EST)

This article does not appear to be copied, but Tangowali does not seem notable enough to have its own article. It seems like an advertisement. What do you think? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2016 (EST)

Advertising a village seems a bit odd, but they do seem to be trying to build an online presence. Perhaps they are trying the get tourism? If it really is a tourist attraction, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to delete the article. However, it sounds like they are trying to use us to promote themselves, which I'm not too happy about. Based on what I know now, I'd say it probably isn't worth keeping. Few people will be looking for it, but they are probably hoping to drive new people to their accounts and get them interested. That qualifies as advertisement, which disqualifies this as an encyclopedia article. I could be missing something, but removing this page doesn't sound like a bad idea. --David B (TALK) 21:13, 23 December 2016 (EST)
That sounds reasonable, and if it is the case, it should probably be removed (even though I have to comment that Pakistan does not sound like the best vacation spot! :)). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (EST)
A visit to Pakistan is definitely not at the top of my bucket list, either, and we're not the only ones--what a shock it's not one of the top 20. --David B (TALK) 23:49, 23 December 2016 (EST)

The editors of Dreams from My Real Father and Raheem Kassam have not responded. They should probably be deleted right now. Do you agree? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Dreams from My Real Father should definitely go. Raheem Kassam has been much more significantly edited since its publishing, so I'd hate to have it deleted but the foundation was plagiarized, so probably it should go too. If the publishers have not responded by now, they probably are not going to. Thanks for staying on top of this! --David B (TALK) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (EST)

help?

Hey David: My calculus page in my user namespace would benefit from a few math images. They are about 10 graphs of math functions. How do we get there from here?--Amorrow (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2016 (EST)

OK. After that tiny ephemeral glitch. Luke 2:10. KJV. "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."--Amorrow (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2016 (EST)
You can request an image upload here: Conservapedia:Image upload requests. Just post the links to the images there, and I or someone else will upload them. Note that they must be in the Public Domain, licensed under CC, or created by you. If you are the creator, please specify under what license you are releasing them. Also, in case you didn't know, there is a <math> tag, which may or may not be useful, depending on what you need. You can enclose a math function in those tags, if it would help. --David B (TALK) 11:43, 3 December 2016 (EST)

User:Amorrow

I blocked User:Amorrow because he spammed external links on his page, and he posted someone's SS number on it. Would you please review his account to make sure my block was justified? Also, what do you think of his page, Systematic English? It almost seems like a parody. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (EST)

I read his SE article yesterday (at least started to,) thought ummm, this is too clever by half, and slept on it. Now back on board, I am not surprised sguy is suspicious. This sort of thing doesn't come out of nothing. AlanE (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (EST)
Yes, and his editing has been quite suspicious. Other than spamming links and very personal info, immediately after making his account he started creating these massive articles. Honestly, it seems like he copied and pasted these articles from somewhere else, and he seems to be familiar with Conservapedia or at least wikis in general. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (EST)
And he just created a new account: Amorrow2 --1990'sguy (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (EST)
Sorry for the delayed response, but I was taking some time to think about it also.
He does know his way around wikis, and his contributions have been somewhat beyond me, if genuine (particularly the SE article). However, I've found no hint of plagiarism in his work as of yet.
Posting links as he did (especially here: User:Amorrow/Sandbox) does look a little suspious, and posting a SSN is just a bad idea all around.
None the lass, he has been making verifiable progress on some templates, and seems to be actually investing time. I'd probably give him another chance, with some tips on how not to arouse suspicion, but I'm not sure. --David B (TALK) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (EST)
He does make a good point about the SSN being public, though I still think it's a bad idea to post it. Also, he shows familiarity yet makes some--no offence--amateurish mistakes too. He might just be picking it up as he does along, as I did. If that's the case, he probably should be given some slack. Also the fact he's defending himself, rather than making new sock puppets to try again with says something. I'm leaning in favor of him, I think. --David B (TALK) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (EST)
He posted on my talk page, and I unblocked him. I am a bit concerned about the "The style rebuilds the Tower_of_Babel" (what does this mean?) line in the SE article, and his citing of Wikipedia in it. However, you are right. He seems innocent and I will give him another chance. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)
Okay, we'll keep an eye out, anyway. That entire article confuses me--you're not alone! Citing WP is a bad idea to, of course, but could be a rookie mistake. Maybe I'm too trusting, but I don't want to abuse and drive away well-meaning people. It's just hard to know sometimes. --David B (TALK) 21:58, 3 December 2016 (EST)
It is hard many times. I experience it myself a lot and I completely understand. I just hope I haven't driven him away because of my block. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2016 (EST)

I'm sure you did alright--I've had the ban page open on him at least once, but decided against it. The fact that he came back to dispute the ban is a good sign in that respect. Thanks for your vigilance! --David B (TALK) 22:31, 3 December 2016 (EST)

Does this place have Bible resources?

David: By "resources", I mean something like this. I have versus from the Vulgate on my userpage. Is it OK to link to offsite Bible versus? I do not see any attempt to provide links to Bible resources in Tower_of_Babel, so I assume that such resource do not exist here.--Amorrow (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2016 (EST)

I'm not aware of anything quite like you want here. There is a Conservative Bible Project you could take a look at, but I don't know if that really fits the bill.
Linking to external sites should usually done at the bottom of the page, in the "external links" section. However, if you are linking to reliable sources (i.e., BibleGateway, not Wikipedia) I'm guessing it would be alright in this case. A safer option might be to insert a reference (using <ref>) to say the bible reference, and link that text to the other website. --David B (TALK) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (EST)

Merry Christmas

cebter

Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Thank you, and a Merry Christmas to you as well! --David B (TALK) 02:14, 25 December 2016 (EST)

Young Earth page

Was wondering why you removed my edit to the young earth page seams kind of contradictory to the wikis message -unsigned comment by GrandMisterTrump 15:13 27 December 2016

Hello, and thanks for reaching out! I reverted your edit because your edit seemed to contradict Conservapedia's beliefs. We permit contrary views, but they should not be stated as fact, because we also have proof to the opposite effect, which generally calls strongly into question the "facts" such as you posted. Posting what you did in a more neutral way would be acceptable. I'm working on editing it now a little, so you can see what I mean. Since you joined along with several vandals, and your nickname sounds very much like the ones vandals have been using, I assumed it was a hostile and not good faith edit. Technically you username goes against out user name policy, so I figured it was a safe assumption. Feel free to edit what I've done, but please keep in mind that we exist largely to publish information which others refuse to release. We are not here to declare it all wrong, but rather offer a good source or information from the conservative viewpoint. --David B (TALK) 15:27, 27 December 2016 (EST)

Psalm 137

The article Psalm 137 does not seem like a legitimate article. What do you think? I blocked the creator for a day (he joined today). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2016 (EST)

I really don't know what to say for pages on chapters of the bible. In general, it's not allowed to paste large blocks of text, but I tend to feel differently about bible texts. Articles should offer, if possible, background and application information, but having the full text could be beneficial. Since he's new and doesn't seem to be causing trouble, I'd probably leave it and him be. However, strictly by the book, he did break a rule. --David B (TALK) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (EST)
What I am referring to specifically is the opening line: "Psalm 137 contains a message helpful to those wishing to justify their questionable stance on infanticide." Also, he seems to be causing trouble, as can be seen in this edit that I reverted, where he changes "great Germanic migrations" (Roman period) to "filthy Germanic immigrants." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2016 (EST)
Oh, yeah that should probably be reworded. I missed the other issue, too--good catch. For that older issue I would consider a ban justified. It's probably just another vandalism attempt in (slight) disguise. --David B (TALK) 23:25, 29 December 2016 (EST)

downtime blurb?

Do you guys have a page or paragraph about the nightly downtime? Someone might have pointed it out before, but I forget.--Amorrow (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2017 (EST)

I believe it's from 1-6 a.m. EDT. Only certain editors can edit during this time. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2017 (EST)
This is all I could find after a quick search: Conservapedia:Edit. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2017 (EST)
It's briefly mentioned on Conservapedia:Quick_reference#Restrictions. Is that what you're looking for? That time is officially correct, User:1990'sguy, though sometimes it seems to kick in at 1:30am. I could be wrong about that though. --David B (TALK) 14:30, 5 January 2017 (EST)
Thanks. That helps a lot. I now have a note on my homepage at thermo4thermo.org about that.--Amorrow (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (EST)
You're welcome, I'm glad I could help! --David B (TALK) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (EST)

Contest

Congrats, get a hold of me for pay out --Jpatt 09:28, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks, but did first, did you notice User:1990'sguy's question on the challenge's talk page? I think he might be right that December pages were not all counted. I did very little that month, so I don't want to take a prize that is not mine.
Thanks! --David B (TALK) 12:14, 6 January 2017 (EST)

Odd that Jpatt has not answered our questions on his talk page and corrected the December results yet. I personally don't think the corrected December results will change the overall results, but it would be nice if it were done. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2017 (EST)

I assume he's been busy, since he mentioned something along those lines when he posted the results you requested. I figured I'd just give him some time, I don't want to rush things. --David B (TALK) 23:59, 14 January 2017 (EST)
That's fair, but its already been 15 days since the year began. That seems like a lot of time already. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2017 (EST)

I need your email address so we can exchange personal details on the prize. I will review the results to make sure 1990'sguy is accurately counted. I have had a huge work load for the past couple months and will only be here sparingly. --Jpatt 10:22, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Okay, my address is davidb4-cp@archnet.us. I'll be looking for a message from you. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 12:55, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Typo

Just a heads up—you misspelled "Conservapedia" as "Consevapedia" on your user page. VargasMilan (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Wow that's...sad. Thanks for pointing it out; I've corrected the issue. --David B (TALK) 09:36, 9 January 2017 (EST)

Templates

Just in case you didn't know, templates take two different types of parameters: positional and named. Positional parameters must be specified in the predefined order. Named parameters are specified with |parmname=value. The named parameters can be in any order, and are not restricted to the order in the template definition.

One reason why some of the parameter names at CP do not match the names on WP is to help catch people who copy and paste from WP without attribution. Thanks,JDano (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2017 (EST)

That makes sense (and works) but there are a few items I think we might benefit from adding. I don't want to change any names, but just add new ones. That wouldn't cause any complications, would it? --David B (TALK) 12:32, 12 January 2017 (EST)

Sydney came here

David: User:SPoore she is a WP admin and has removed some of my work there because Jimmy Wales declared me to be "unwelcome" in 2007. She works closely with a lesbian admin there to hunt down anything that might be my work. I know that their efforts are amateur since I have seen that some of their efforts have had some collateral damage.--Amorrow (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2017 (EST)

I see what you mean, and appreciate you pointing her out. Technically, her claim about it being an unsourced comment is true, so I don't think a block is warranted for that action alone. However, if she persists in deleting content, she will qualify as a vandal, and I'll certainly ban her. I'm posting a warning on her account also. Let me know if you have any further problems with her! --David B (TALK) 15:12, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Thanks for your quick response. I admit that that paragraph is the result of my extensive experience of being the punching bag of Jimbo and his crew. I am trying to be fair but I think that the paragraph is redeemable to provide the reader with some insight without introducing excessive bias. Perhaps it is too much "interpretation" to be in the lead. It has been a lonely ten years of building and building only too have these females (and Jimbo himself once long ago) hide the well-cited product of my work. I am re-creating Elizabeth Morgan case. It is going to require at least another full day of work for me. I will let you review the citations provided, if you have the time. I imagine that, as a properly credentialed lawyer, the Founder of this website would appreciate more case law, even if it is controversial (and thus perhaps even polarizing). BTW: Groner is also an attorney and was the only one capable of publishing a full book on the case while other gave up because of the litigious nature of the parties involved. Morgan carried on about what a victim she was after she got back into the USA. The Newman case was simply the cherry on top.--Amorrow (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2017 (EST)
If something is from your personal experience, I suppose you could add a reference something along the lines of "Personal experience of user Amorrow from 20xx to 20xx". Some people do just leave sections of this sort unsourced. Since this is striving to be an encyclopedia, it probably would be better to show who this information came from. However, I'm not innocent of leaving unsourced statements either. I don't know much of the inner workings of WP nowadays, but if your information is accurate, I see no reason to remove it. As for the court cases, I honestly know nothing about them, so on the one hand I can't very well offer suggestions or assistance, but on the other hand, I can read it with a neutral perspective. I'm happy to look it and its references over if you wish! In general, as long as you provide credible references for each new claim/idea, you are probably doing plenty. Sometimes things will be "common knowledge" so that's not even needed. I'll look forward to reading it! --David B (TALK) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (EST)
I had a busy at this web site today and yesterday. I will probably get to the citations on my new work soon. I added {{fact}} as needed. My personal experience started with WP in 2005 and continues to this day. Wales publicly denounced me in January 2006 because I contacted an Irish admin (known as User:Musical_Linguist). She had used her real name for many months and revealed enough personal info on her userpage to make the ID an easy task (Ann Heneghan of DIT, Dublin, Ireland). It seems that once these females get an advantage over the hard-working males, they assume the air of the God-King (i.e. Queendom) where the cat cannot look at the queen. All attempts at two-way communication are immediately characterized as harassment. This Irish lesbian User:Alison had a close friendship with Ann. I guess I should mention that I first learned of Elizabeth Morgan from a Reader's Digest article about her in 1982 or so. I was impressed with her personality at the time and told myself I should marry such a person, if possible. I did eventually contact Morgan and one of her lawyers (who was advertising his involvement in the case) for her feedback which I now realize was a mistake. I had talked with Groner on the phone and thought that things might be collegial. I did marry a person somewhat like Morgan (a pediatrician) in 1991 but my now ex-wife became extremely greedy with the baby only a few weeks after our daughter's birth. I paid a tremendous amount of money in child support. I could go on and on about how these females carry on with their victim-hood at all costs to the Truth or sharing knowledge or any such thing. All protracted conflicts of interest are like that, I suppose. I strive to be as objective as Groner (or the Founder) when it comes to documentation on those case law articles. The rest is mostly hard-won wisdom that I can provide cites for given some more time.--Amorrow (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

Biographies of people I know personally

David: I have some radical friends that I would like to create biographies of at this site. The list includes Sam Sloan and Gypsy Taub. Neither of them are exemplars of morality. but I think that they are thought-provoking. I am willing to frame the text from a conservative point-of-view to a limited degree. I mostly want to just describe the facts about them.

  • Sam is close to being a genius and an adventurer. He has a WP biography, which I started. Sam does sometimes promote himself, but not excessively, in my opinion. Sam has a few dozen enemies who have been making false accusations that he abused his children or some such. His enemies are mostly young men who recognize that they are living non-notable lives and will be forgotten while Sam will be remembered.
  • Gypsy is a single nudist activist mother of three. She has been very active and she has been in the SF Bay Area news over the past four years or so.


If you think these people are notable enough to create articles on them, then you can probably do so. Just keep in mind:
  1. State and cite the facts as much as possible. Try not to attack or insult either person, but just say it like it is. If you cannot cite something, it might be a good idea to add a citation referring to your experience. Some may not consider your word alone credible, but it's probably the right thing to do. Since you are wring in third person, you could also write it like "In the opinion of one person who knew/knows him/her, ..." Do what you think is best, and ask if you have any questions.
  2. This is a family-friendly site, so be careful with pages on people like Gypsy Taub. I don't know if it would be beneficial or harmful to this purpose if we had a page on her. If you write it, I trust you will use reasonable discretion.
Good "luck" --David B (TALK) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (EST)
Gypsy contacted me recently because her WP article was removed (and also disappeared a few weeks later from Google Knowledge Base) so I tossed one back together on my own wiki: http://awm.wiki/mw/index.php/Gypsy_Taub . I also extensively use her here: http://awm.wiki/mw/index.php/Multilateral_nuclear_disarmament . What can I say? i am willing to say almost anything to get God's children to care and to become more activist in keeping the nukes from flying. IMO: if they fly, everything else hardly matters. As you can probably already guess, Gypsy's WP article was deleted not because of content but rather because it was suspected that I created it. You know their Nazi policy: burn books by author, not by content. Well, the Nazis did both, but the former is IMO more evil. I understand their goals: users are just their lab rats to be operated on for the purpose of behavior modification as if these thugs are all trained psychologists or police or something like that. I think of such an approach as unjustifiable in the USA or any other proper democracy. It might be OK for monarchy, but not for the USA as Thomas Jefferson conceived it in the DOI and the US Constitution.--Amorrow (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (EST)
What you have on http://awm.wiki/mw/index.php/Gypsy_Taub seems true, but I think it would probably be best not to copy that to CP. If you want to publish something here about her, a shorter, less descriptive blurb may be acceptable. However, you should not link to pages with inappropriate photographs even as references. Please try to be very careful with this, since this site is intended at least in part for homeschooling. As CP's rule #3 says, all content should be "family-friendly" and "clean."
I understand your stance on nuclear weapons--who wants a nuclear war? However, I personally disagree. Hostile nations are not going to give up their greatest source of political and military power. Therefore, it would be foolish (and deadly) for us and our allies to surrender ours. Had we not possessed them in quantity during the cold war (including those on submarines, which were probably our best "insurance policy") we probably would be speaking Russian now. I do have mixed feelings about our use of them in WWII. It was horrific and terrifying for sure. However, the purpose was accomplished--use our newest technology to save thousands of American lives. The island-hopping which the Japanese wanted to force us thorough would have been a horrific bloodbath of its own, which would have dragged out for quite some time, probably years. Though I hope we never do that again, I hope and fight for it to never happen again because no one dares to attack us. Nuclear weapons are used for that purpose--a deterrent. No one intends to use them here in the U.S., but we are ready to launch them, so that we never need to.
This "peace through superior firepower" reasoning may sound like the wild west, but it works surprisingly well. Whether you seek to disarm citizens or governments, someone will readily take advantage of that weakness. Some people will not be dissuaded by diplomacy--they want land and money, and that's all. In fact, communism only survives by taking wealth from others. Eventually, it must expand or suffer collapse. The only thing tyrants understand sometimes is the fact that they can attack us, but by the end of the day, their own country will be demolished. Since we can and will strike back if needed, it will probably never be needed.
Hopefully I'm making some sense here. One final note, the end times may well involve nuclear weapons, which will be horrific. However, if it is written in scripture, then there is nothing you, I, any other man or any angel can do to stop it. God has already decreed how things will happen, and we cannot change it. All we can do is act responsibly and be prepared for whatever He has decreed for us. --David B (TALK) 23:31, 18 January 2017 (EST)
Thanks for the reminder about the objectives of this site. I reject the notion that some vast global setback in civilization by man's own hand has anything to do with the "end times". It is merely a substantial reduction in human population and technology back to some earlier situation and with much more difficult prospects of progress because of a lack of easy surface resources (mineral ores, oil, etc.). If such had already happened and I was somehow a survivor, I would merely think of it as God's will as is the rest of the Past: immutable and eternal. The "end times" are in the Future as if hidden by the Fog of War. I consider the near-term Future to be, to some degree, Man's Will. I could go on and on about what I know about how quickly nuclear Armageddon can happen and how close we have come in the past to it happening via insanely stupid computer malfunction. I am a privileged engineer with a bent towards military history. I simply see the whole system as unstable and in need or any practicable safeguards, even just to buy ten more minutes of information-gathering and deliberation. Think of the difference a well-informed engineer could have made by hitting the button and scramming the reactors in time at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima. What if things had gone the other way with the Cuban Missile Crisis? I assert that making progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament is a multi-century geopolitical problem worthy of attack. It is worthy of our best minds if that it what it takes to find ways to buy more time at those critical moments of crisis and decision-making. Despite the frequent references in Scripture about the proximity of the end times, it simply has not panned out that way for many, many generations. I do not plan on divine intervention fixing this human-made problem for me.--Amorrow (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (EST)
Here https://books.google.com/books?id=iz6yXF4Z4VQC&pg=PA107 is a quick note about (2 Thessalonians). Paul clears up an apparent misunderstanding where (1 Thessalonians) was misinterpreted as an assertion that the Second Coming was nigh. Many in that church had become idle, thus the necessity the second epistle. See also http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/class-25-2-thessalonians/ .--Amorrow (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Category:Dutch political party

Would you please move Category:Dutch political party per its talk page? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2017 (EST)
Any time! --David B (TALK) 23:43, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Vandalism reverts

David, Thanks! Meanwhile, I already got to the same vandalist work done to my upgrade of Pope.

Actually, it's a form of affirmation of truthful work when workers of evil react with destructive deletion. They just can't stand truth, goodness and beauty, all of which comes from the breath of God. Matthew 5:11

Pax vobis --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Vandalism is wrong; make no mistake about that. And I have reverted my share of it, though I don't have the authority to block anyone.
But you should not fall into the "Someone disagrees with me, so I must be right." fallacy or the "Someone has vandalized this wiki, so it must be right." fallacy. I have seen these fallacies expressed by admins on a number of occasions. The fact that someone disagrees with a statement that you make, even if they express that disagreement in a tasteless way, doesn't automatically make your statement more likely to be true. I like to think that what makes my statements (mostly on science and math) true is the enormous amount of research and careful writing that I put into them.
I do, from time to time, take comfort in Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:11. But He wasn't speaking about just any type of disagreement—He used the phrase "for my sake". So, when I am being "reviled and persecuted", I think carefully about whether what I am doing is right. And whether I am being a Christian (turning the other cheek, loving my enemies, all that stuff), or just being disagreeable. SamHB (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2017 (EST)
I'm glad to assist! I may take a more middle of the road view on this, but I tend to agree more with Dataclarifier. Being attacked doesn't prove you are right, but when the attacker is someone you know to be deceived, deceitful, or both, it isn't a stretch to say that what they are angrily striking out against might have some merit. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may be an over-simplification, but it did get us through WWII, after all. In a trivial matter like this, it can still ring true. Those hatefully striking out at specific good things (i.e. pro-life articles) show their true colors. Once you know they are corrupt, you can be somewhat assured that their rage at legitimate content shows how they simply can't stand it because of their worldview.
You can't cite vandalism as a legitimizing source, but it can be a good sign. As a personal example, I had never heard of many of Trump's appointments. However, seeing the news media (a clearly liberal platform) rail on them showed me just how much these people were polar opposites from the liberal media. I know we don't entirely agree on politics, Sam, but this can be a good indicator regardless of the specific example. --David B (TALK) 01:26, 21 January 2017 (EST)
I do not believe that Sam knew that the vandal had blanked the entire content of both my talk page and a new article page I was working on and substituted the single word "bollocks". I'll post him a note. --Dataclarifier (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2017 (EST)
Perhaps, but I think his main point of contention was you comment regarding the idea that since they are attacking, we (in this case, you) must be doing a good job. His point was that you can be dead wrong and still under attack. That was my understanding, anyway. --David B (TALK) 12:37, 25 January 2017 (EST)
Got it! I agree. I said as much to him in my note. --Dataclarifier (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Chop

I concede that my style is choppy. I learned it at WP because of the adolescent minds that are constantly in search of an excuse to hit the easy, easy "undo" button on the results of mature person's work. It is a big ego-boost for them and satisfies the schadenfreude elements in their personality (or whatever their social agenda is at the moment). I will try to maintain some awareness of that in my work here.--Amorrow (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (EST)

That's alright, everyone has their flaws, include me. I've had my grammar/style corrected a number of times in the recent past. Flow can be tricky to achieve, it seems to me. Each concise statement makes sense, but stick them all together, and as you know, it can sound a bit choppy. How to improve flow depends very much on what is being written. I sometimes try to remedy that by using a sort of contrasting "this but that" style, so one sentence says one thing, but then a second sentence shows how an obvious assumption might be wrong and further clarifies. This leads to perhaps an over-use of "however", but it's a sometimes easy way to show the reader you are taking a different perspective but continuing with a logical flow.
Anyway, collaboration is great in that people can smooth out other peoples' wrinkles. As long as you're making an effort at "good faith" contributions, (which you certainly have been) you are still helping out. If you really want to "unlearn" bad grammatical habits, you could try reading a book on it. There are a few suggestions here, which I would probably benefit from as well, but haven't found/made the time for.
Cheers! --David B (TALK) 01:14, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Question

Would you please take a look at this edit and the talk page explanation. I have to urge to revert a lot or all of it, but I'd like a second opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2017 (EST)

I responded. I do question the worthiness of two of them, but the other two I've restored. I suppose a third opinion could always be requested, but I think those other two are somewhat lacking. --David B (TALK) 22:28, 24 January 2017 (EST)

Another question: I would like a second opinion on this source. Is it just more MSM fake news or is there something of value in it? --1990'sguy (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (EST)

There could be some truth there, but it sounds to me like a bunch of liberal hooey. I'd sooner suspect that they are trying to weasel out of admitting bias, and are using all manner of excuses and double talk to explain why Trump isn't doing as well as it seems. They are despite to show those "deceived" by "fake news" how he really is a terribly awful, despicable, disgusting and deceitful (you get the idea) guy, and this serves that purpose. It looks to me like they are trying to undermine the clear evidence of his success. Of course, I don't know it all--I could be dead wrong, but this sounds like the same old type of games they like to play. I will grant that the stock market is effected by much more than just elections, but U.S. elections effect more than just the U.S. market. Even if other countries' markets affected ours, our election may have contributed to their welfare as well. That kind of thinking is not egocentric, nor a claim that "we rule the world" but realism. The U.S. is very influential, despite the efforts of the Obamas and Clintons. --David B (TALK) 21:33, 26 January 2017 (EST)
Thanks for the response. Yes, I have seen a lot of this kind of "reporting" lately. The deceitful MSM is doing all they can to delegitimize Trump. At the same time, however (unlike the MSM), I want to stick to the facts and not skew the truth, so when I see an article like that I have the urge to include it. But no, I think you're right. It's better to keep it out and just stick with the two sources that attribute the Dow Jones rise to President Trump. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2017 (EST)
It is good (and sometimes difficult) to keep a balanced view. I try to do the same, but during this election it has just gotten to the point where almost everything they say in a lie or half-truth--I'm having a hard time doing that. Feel free to get a third opinion! :) --David B (TALK) 23:41, 26 January 2017 (EST)

error in math diagram

David: I have a complaint about http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Log.png. I use it in a userspace page of mine and it is used in Natural logarithm and Logarithm. I have updated all three captions, thus it is not urgent, but you may want to get to it when you have time. In the image, there are three lines: base 2, base e (2.7...) and base 10. The red line (the middle-value line) is the "base e" line, but it is documented in the legend of the image as the "base 2" line (and visa versa). Of course, if you had the SVG version of the file, then it is easy to correct the error in the SVG source code. If you do not have the SVG, then perhaps you might want to cut-and-paste the line colors in the legend of the PNG image or something like that.--Amorrow (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (EST)

I did the image edit. I put the update request in Conservapedia:Image upload requests#Update math image .--Amorrow (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2017 (EST)

Trump achievements

I guess this isn't of major importance, but it's still good to make this clear. If you or anyone else notices that I have omitted any accomplishments from Donald Trump achievements, feel free to add them. I'm just mentioning this because with President Trump's massive activity, it's hard to keep up. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Okay, I may do that. I don't have much free time right now, but if I notice an omission and get the chance, I'll do that. You're right, he's doing so much, it's hard to keep up! It seems that page is being kept up to date fairly well. --David B (TALK) 23:16, 28 January 2017 (EST)
Just to be clear, I'm not making any demands upon you or anything. I just realize with how much he's doing I will probably miss something. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2017 (EST)
Of course--I did understand that, but thanks for clarifying. Sometimes meanings can be entirely misunderstood when writing rather than saying something. Cheers! --David B (TALK) 23:28, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Please review

Would you please review User:Rleonardw and his many (and massive) edits on Obama's Religion? I'm very worried he's inserting liberal POV, but would you please check for a second opinion. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2017 (EST)

I've been trying to keep any eye on it, but I haven't much time today. From what I've seen, Rleonardw seems to be making acceptable changes, turning the page into more of an encyclopedia article and less of a blog post. I've had my eye on a few pages like that, which although true, need some significant revision to make them more professional. I think he/she is just doing some much needed cleanup. I may have missed something serious, but so far I haven't noticed anything warranting acting against him/her. --David B (TALK) 18:08, 30 January 2017 (EST)
It seems Mr. Schlafly does not agree with me. Perhaps I should have reviewed more, or perhaps I was just plain wrong. Either way, those edits have been reverted. --David B (TALK) 00:45, 31 January 2017 (EST)

Strange, very old protection of an image

David: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3ABilly+sunday.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= reports an admin action by a IP address back in 2007. You might want to unprotect the image.--Amorrow (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2017 (EST)

That does seem odd. However, this wiki was started in 2007, so it's possible that many of the rules and protections now in effect were not enabled at the time. I don't know why/how that happened, so I don't know if it should be reverted or not. However, I do not have the authority to undo that, so in my case it's a moot point. You could bring it to the attention of Aschlafly or Jpatt--they could give you better context, and deal with it properly. --David B (TALK) 00:31, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Trump achievements

Would you please take a look at my recent question at Talk:Donald Trump achievements? I'm not sure if Trump's statement concerning Obama's executive order about LGBT matters is important enough to be included in the article, or if it is necessarily a failure. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2017 (EST)

Unrelated, would you please move File:Lief Ericson.jpg per the talk page request? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2017 (EST)

I would if I could, but that page is protected, so only a full admin can move it. --David B (TALK) 16:22, 4 February 2017 (EST)
Good point. Should have thought of that. Would you please move Aarhuus per its talk page? --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2017 (EST)
One more request: Presidential candidates on homosexuality to something like "2016 presidential candidates on homosexuality." --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2017 (EST)
No problem, it's easy to miss. I've moved Aarhuus, but Presidential candidates on homosexuality is a move active page, with more people watching it. I've posted a request/suggestion, and will give it a little time, in case someone objects. --David B (TALK) 17:58, 4 February 2017 (EST)

Pages to be moved

Hello DavidB4, here are some pages that need to be moved (Talk page with some information).

That's all for now. --Gentenaar (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2017 (EST)

Done! Thanks for pointing those out--let me know if you find more. --David B (TALK) 23:31, 5 February 2017 (EST)
I will, thanks for your help! --Gentenaar (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2017 (EST)

Would you please move Cobra 1986 Film to Cobra (1986 film)? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Done--thanks for pointing that out! --David B (TALK) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (EST)

George Shultz

I updated that biography of that conservative statesman. Please check my work. If you think he is getting soft in his old age, well, so be it.--Amorrow (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (EST)

Well, the section you added feels to me like it is rambling on a bit near the end. However, I'm not opposed to the the edit in general. I don't agree with him (or you) on this, but it's stated as his beliefs, not an absolute truth. I don't think you'll get any trouble from this, but I would suggest you try to make it all flow a little better. You can always get a second opinion, too. Cheers! --David B (TALK) 22:55, 8 February 2017 (EST)

Another bug related to your bot

David, I was recently editing one of the atheism articles and noticed that bot removed a line space in one of the pictures and captions in one of my articles. As you can see in the picture/caption atop the article Atheism and love, line spaces can make things considerably more readable.

I will endeavor to do some backtracking as far as my recent editing and find the particular case where you bot removed one of the line spaces withing a picture/caption on an article. Conservative (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2017 (EST)

I just fixed another case of your bot removing a line space within a picture/caption. Please see the edit history of Western atheism and race. Conservative (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2017 (EST)
I found the original case I discovered where your bot removed a line space with a picture/caption. It was in this article: Atheism and suicide. Conservative (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2017 (EST)
I just fixed another case: Atheism, race and gender.
The bot did it for two pictures/captions in the article Atheism statistics and I just fixed them. I will not tell you about other cases. I think I provided enough examples for now. Conservative (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (EST)
Okay, I think I see what you mean. It took me a little while to determine exactly what you were undoing, since you were making multiple edits, but the issue is that the bot is removing a <br /> tag after the images, right?
If that is correct, then it seems the main style ruleset doesn't like more than one break tag in a row. A workaround would be to use the {{clear}} template, but I'll see what I can do. The bot actually seems to dislike a number of things about your style--it can be quite picky. Maybe I should just have it skip pages you have created. I'm not sure if that's possible, but it might be a more permanent workaround. Ultimately, I want a better bot, as I've mentioned before. This one feels like a bunch of "black boxes" all thrown together--it's hard to change.
Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. I'll do what I can to fix it, and/or add this to the list of reasons to decommission this bot. --David B (TALK) 17:45, 13 February 2017 (EST)

OK. Thanks for your feedback. Conservative (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2017 (EST)

Thanks!

You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Very nice--good job to you as well! Also, if you look here you can see that the edit, page count, etc. are continuing to steadily rise. It's no cause for slowing down, but it is encouraging! --David B (TALK) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (EST)
Thanks for sharing that with me. It seems like Trump has invigorated the right-wing of politics and we are getting more editors. Conservative (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2017 (EST)

Gypsy Taub again

Hey. You did not tell me that you had Category:Sexual_Revolutionaries . I had find it and properly categorize it. I am adding some more now because the mood takes me.--Amorrow (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Oh, I'd forgotten about that category. Well, thanks for the organization work! --David B (TALK) 17:00, 17 February 2017 (EST)

Suspicious article

Would you please review LedgerLite and the user who created it, User:Matthew Jenkinson? It looks like a promotional article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2017 (EST)

He is also doing some fundamental accounting aeticles. Let's wait and see. JDano (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2017 (EST)
I'd say that's almost definitely an advertising attempt, but we can give it a little time and see. --David B (TALK) 02:50, 20 February 2017 (EST)
WP rejected it [29] --David B (TALK) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (EST)
He has one and I have two image requests pending. Thanks, JDano (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2017 (EST)
Yours are done, I'm putting a hold on his request for the moment. --David B (TALK) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (EST)

Question

Are Conservative Atheists Allowed here? I'm one of the few conservative atheists out there. (Long story, got into heated argument with a Sunni and had a political realignment) I won't go around editing articles on creationism, but I noticed that many of the articles on aviation topics didn't exist (IATA codes, example) or were short. Is it okay if I expanded the section on "attacks on secularists in Bangladesh"? Considering the events I felt as though the victims deserved to be named, they made the ultimate sacrifice for the peaceful movement against Sharia in Bangladesh. Cheers, IluvAviation (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (EST)IluvAviation

They (and you) most certainly are welcome. We have an assortment of atheists, evolutionists, and other people of different beliefs than Conservapedia. As long as you do not undermine the conservative, and where applicable, Christian content of this site, you are certainly welcome to contribute! Obviously, you will find those who disagree with you (such as User:Conservative, who writes a plethora or articles against atheism) but as long as your are not causing trouble, we're glad to have you here.
I have noticed that one editor created a lot of articles on aircraft, but never really finished a lot of them, so it would be great if you could help out by improving them! As for "attacks on secularists in Bangladesh" I would say it is probably ask fine, but please try to keep it in a neutral, third person voice, as any encyclopedia article should be. Since that is on a more politically sensative topic, your edits there are likely to earn more scrutiny. You don't need to write what you don't believe, but just keep in mind the beliefs and purpose of Conservapedia, and you should be fine.
Thanks for your contributions! --David B (TALK) 18:10, 1 March 2017 (EST)
@User:DavidB4|David B
Thanks so much for taking care of some of my image upload requests. :) Already made a Userbox:
Raif Badawi cropped.jpg
This user demands the immediate and unconditional release of Raif Badawi.
and improved Bio:Raif Badawi http://www.conservapedia.com/Raif_Badawi (In case you don't know who he is, he was sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes for running blog titled "Free Saudi Liberals" because it was, I kid you not, "insulting Islam through electronic channels" If you're wondering why I reverted 1990's guy's edit categorizing him as an atheist...Nobody will know if he is an atheist unless he survives prison to leave the KSA and say if he is. But he may be charged with apostasy, which carries an automatic death penalty in Saudi Arabia.)--IluvAviation (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (EST)
You're welcome! I see you now have upload rights--that's great! Also, I didn't know about Raif Badawi, so thanks for the info! I have mixed feelings about not using that category. Besides, I doubt the Saudi's look at CP. Anyway, Enjoy uploading! Just please attribute everything correctly, and add [[Category:Image]] and at least one other relevant category to each one. Also, there are some image license templates here, which you might find useful. --David B (TALK) 18:00, 5 March 2017 (EST)

infobox

Help! I was trying to create the infobox template here http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Infobox_airport for airports, but I have failed. Your profile said you are good with computers, if you could provide any help at all it would be very much appreciated. I noticed the list of major airports in the US had lots of broken links, so I started a summary with infobox for JFK since it's such a major airport but failed spectacularly. Again, appreciate all the help.  :) --IluvAviation (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2017 (EST)

I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll see what I can do when I'm available. I'm not an expert at templates, but I've played around with them a bit. I'll see if I can find the issue. --David B (TALK) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You!!!!!--IluvAviation (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (EST)

It appears that Template:Infobox airport has been copied from Wikipedia. I don't know if the copying restrictions apply or not, but the template will have to be changed in some way regardless. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2017 (EST)

I don't know about templates--I think most wiki code blocks are released as GNU Public, but I'm not sure. In any case, it needs to be remade, so that won't matter much. It's good that you caught that, though--I hadn't even checked. --David B (TALK) 19:53, 2 March 2017 (EST)
I was pretty sure the templates and wikitext are public domain.--IluvAviation (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Do you think this account, User:EditorASC, just spam? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2017 (EST)

I think probably, but I was going to wait a bit to see. The linked website doesn't seem to have any ads, or even any trackers, so the webmaster would not directly benefit from traffic. However, he/she still may be trying to gain search rank, and figures we look like as good a SEO platform as any. I figured I'd give them a day or two before I broke out the sledgehammer, but that wait may be unnecessary. You can take it now, if you think that's the best move. --David B (TALK) 16:19, 3 March 2017 (EST)

Japanese animation article

Over at the article on Japanese animation, in its criticism section, I had to include reflinks to a couple of sections (specifically, these: [30] [31]) from the Facebook page "I Hate Anime" [32] as sources relating to why anime receives criticism as they appear to be the few concise sources I could find regarding criticism of hardcore fans of anime (AKA otakus). I'm not sure what the policy is on using Facebook links in articles at Conservapedia, but if it's preferred that they not be included, I can remove the links. Northwest (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2017 (EST)

In general, you're right that Facebook is not a good source. In this case, I think we could explain it away, since the section is talking about societal opinions of anime. Since it is discussing why some people hate it, it might be reasonable to use social media sources....maybe. If you could find some research study on why some people criticize it, that would clearly be a better source. However, I doubt that exists.
I did notice that this page has some crude language and comments. That's not the best thing to have on a "family-friendly" wiki. However, you can also look at it this way: User:Conservative regularly cites blogs (one of which I suspect he owns) which are poor resources. Some of those blogs also have some very distasteful content, and are not "family-friendly". Therefore, if he can do it, you probably can as well.
While I don't really support that reasoning, it is probably true. In short, you will probably be okay, but it's not a fantastic idea. If you can find something more reliable, use it. If not, try to at least take it easy on the "adult" language and content in the FaceBook pages you link to. Probably some citation, however unreputable, is better than none. --David B (TALK) 23:52, 8 March 2017 (EST)

amateur radio wiki

I attempted to add this to the page, but Karajou deleted it before I could get there. I've had edit conflicts before, but never had a page deleted out from under me  :-)

There's a lot of stuff plagiarized by TAR from the amateur radio wiki. I cleaned up some of it, but there's a lot more to be done. (I also added some original amateur radio content, like the band allocations; TAR and I are both ham radio enthusiasts.) TAR did an enormous amount of damage, and we are still feeling the effects of it. If you are going to clean this up, I'd suggest going through the appropriate categories and doing a thorough search. It's going to be a lot of work, and I don't have time for it. SamHB (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2017 (EST)
Karajou was quick on the draw for sure! :)
Yeah. I shouldn't have tried to post to its talk page, since I knew the page was on the chopping block. I should have just come here in the first place and waited for you or Karajou to deliver the death-blow.
I didn't know it was an epidemic--I don't have much time these days either, but I'll add it the list of things to do...someday...when I retire...
I didn't know you used HAM radio also--interesting! I know a little about it, but do not have a license. I can't improve such articles much, but I can certainly compare them, and run a similarity test. As always, thanks for the insights! --David B (TALK) 11:41, 10 March 2017 (EST)
I think I may have given you an off-the-top-of-my-head rundown of TAR's stuff (something about Ayurvedic medicine????) and forgot that topic. The amateur radio material is good; it's too bad it was plagiarized. The amateur radio wiki that it was plagiarized from is an excellent wiki (not surprising; hams are meticulous and accurate.)
So what I think would be a good idea, for someone to do, after we retire, of course, would be to turn those articles, after deleting them :-( , into "external links" things in the main amateur radio article.
As I believe you know, my method for spotting plagiarism is to find a particularly unusual or obscurely worded phrase, and Google it as a quoted string. You can find all sorts of interesting things that way! And not just at Conservapdeia.
SamHB (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

William F. Albright

Would you please check William F. Albright for plagiarism? The article creator is by all indications a legitimate, good-faith editor, but he/she is new here, so I just want to be certain. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

It never hurts to check. It seems that this is modified text from another source. Parts of it are somewhat similar to
  • https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZVhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq="was+"a+master+of+so+many+disciplines+linked+to+the+study+of+the+ancient+Near+East,+in+particular,"&source=bl&ots=dL6TqO6UAA&sig=0Nmh0gV5HLN9_RFSNZWC87nM3Vo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE0Z-O5tbSAhUF64MKHS_QAOEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q="was%20"a%20master%20of%20so%20many%20disciplines%20linked%20to%20the%20study%20of%20the%20ancient%20Near%20East%2C%20in%20particular%2C"&f=false</br>

and

Thank you. I will message the article creator. I have two more questions. First, would you please move Chancellors of Germany to Chancellor of Germany? Second, what do you use for plagiarism checks? Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (EDT)
Thanks! Moved to Chancellors of Germany. For plagiarism checks, I wrote a program a while back which does "intelligent" web searches on text, but it has developed some issues. Your best bet would probably be to use an online tool. There are some pretty good free ones, such as http://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker. Some other online tools I've used with varying success are:
There may be a better way or website, but hopefully this is a start. If you find something better, I'd be interested as well! Of course, these methods only work if the plagiarized source has been indexed by the correct search engine. --David B (TALK) 20:19, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Faithful Word Baptist Church is a selective copy of the Wikipedia article (recent revision). It also cites no sources, has no categories, and the article creator's username was removed. This article should go at most, and the article needs a lot of work at least. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2017 (EDT)

Ah, okay. I wasn't any significant duplication for WP, but I was seeing very similar text on other websites. I guess all of those other sites plagiarized too. You're right, then, something should be done. I don't know anything about the church, so I shouldn't write about it, but if some one else is going to, that would be great. Otherwise, like you said, deletion sounds reasonable. --David B (TALK) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (EDT)
It seems like this church has been in some controversies in the last few years that has seen national attention (probably from the MSM, I will admit). However, this article mentions none of it, so a reader will have no clue why this church is notable. I also know very little about this church, and I'm unwilling to do make any major edits on it at the moment (other than adding cats, external links, etc.), so I would prefer deletion. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2017 (EDT)
Let's go for deletion, then. Someone with more knoledge on the topic can recreate the page later, the right way. --David B (TALK) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (EDT)

Could you please write this article?

Could you please write this important article: Atheism and ethics?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. Conservative (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

I may be able to, but have only been able to contribute by multi-tasking the last few days, so it may be difficult to find time to focus enough to write coherently. Also, I'm not as well studied up on the topic as you, so I don't know how much I can help. In any case, I'll see what I can do as time permits. --David B (TALK) 13:25, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Sources to help you write an article

Secular sources:

Additional sources:

Phenol

Thank you for adding the image to phenol. Desmonduk (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Any time! Also, feel free to request any images you would like uploaded (as long as the license permits it). --David B (TALK) 15:16, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

Template:Book

Is there any way you can help fix Template:Book and Template:Book2? The code for both of them is confusing. I am also confused on the need for two of them. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

Sure, no problem!
I think I've fixed Book, though it still doesn't have hardly any styling. I wasn't sure what might be appropriate, but at least adding colors might be a nice idea. Let me know if you still have issues, or want any styling. As for Book2, I would say someone was making an unsuccessful template. IT would probably work if you copy the entire thing, and hard-code in the values. However, it doesn't seem to process passed variables properly. I could be misunderstanding it, but in my opinion, it is just plain broken. --David B (TALK) 18:45, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for your help! Would you please add fields for the book's ISBN, date published, publisher, page length, as well as fields for a picture of the book cover and a caption? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
One more thing: would you please move Willhelm Wundt to Wilhelm Wundt? It appears to be a spelling error. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
How does this look?
Title Here
Book of philosophy.jpg
Example image
Author: DavidB4
Country: USA
Language: U.S. English
Subject: Example
Date Published: 3/19/2017
Pages: 0
ISBN: 0000000000
I've also moved the page to Wilhelm Wundt, as requested. Regarding setting up an e-mail account for CP, I would also be happy to create one or more e-mail forwarders for you. Then you can distribute the forwarder address (like 1990sguy@archnet.us) and any message sent there would be automatically passed on to your personal address, without the sender's knowledge. If the address comes under attack, you can just delete it, and use a new one. The main disadvantage of this is it is one-way. You cannot send messages back out through that forwarder, but only from your own e-mail account. It's not perfect, but it can work. I'm more or less in charge of an entire community service site right now (another thing perhaps I shouldn't have volunteered for...) which offers stuff like this, so it's no trouble. Let me know if you are interested! --David B (TALK) 23:25, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
Thank you for the infobox! It looks great! Also, thank you for your offer to create an email forwarder email address for me! However, I think it would be better if I create a completely new email address, as it will probably be more convenient for me, with being able to respond to people with that same address, for example. As I also edit other wikis with the same username, it will come in handy for me. However, I do appreciate your offer! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
You're welcome! Let me know if you need anything else added. For E-mail, that's probably a good idea, as it can be tricky responding to someone from an address they don't recognize. I generally use forwarders for posting publicly, where they are eventually harvested by a advertiser. When the spam starts coming it, I just trash that address and make a new one. --David B (TALK) 18:58, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

The Genesis Flood cover

Would there be any problem if I upload the cover photo for The Genesis Flood?[33] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Technically, it is probably copyrighted (unless otherwise stated) so that could theoretically be an issue. However, since we are more or less on their side, and trying if anything to help out the publishers, fair use might be a defensible claim. I looked over at WP, and of course, they talked their way out of the restrictions and used it. Probably it's okay, but you could ask Andy to be sure. --David B (TALK) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
OK. Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I don't know how helpful a definite maybe is, but you're welcome! --David B (TALK) 21:31, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
You did give me clear directions on what to do: ask Mr. Schlafly. That's why I thanked you. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Unrelated, it seems that TAR added many links and cats to Globalization. Would you please look it over and remove the clutter? Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

I've cleaned it up some. Some other people here are a bit more...ruthless in cleanup, so they may do more.
It's always a good idea to watch for this, so thanks! --David B (TALK) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (EDT)

Sorting essays

Sorting essays

Ive never edited Conservapedia, butI was just looking through the recent changes and noticed that on some, but not all of the essays it now has something​ like:

Warning: Default sort key "Stem Cells" overrides earlier default sort key "Essay:Stem Cells".

At the bottom the the page. -The above unsigned comment posted was posted by User:FredericBernard

Ah yes, you are entirely correct, thanks for pointing that out. It seems one of the templates sometimes used forces the sorting incorrectly, so that is conflicting with my sort entries. I'm trying to get approval to edit the template, which should resolve the issue. Again, thank you! --David B (TALK) 16:46, 27 March 2017 (EDT