- 1 Main Page News
- 2 Regarding Main Page News Headlines
- 3 MATCH UPDATE
- 4 References
- 5 biblical characters
- 6 Do not delete content
- 7 Portal updates
- 8 Scientific technique
- 9 sorry
- 10 Old church
- 11 mutation insertions
- 12 about us consitution edit
- 13 typos and grammer
- 14 Convergent Evolution
- 15 Decline of atheism
- 16 E-mail
- 17 a little help
- 18 about edits
- 19 Incorrect section
- 20 Headline text
- 21 Genetic monomorphism
- 22 producing genetic convergence
- 23 Continued participation
Main Page News
Template:News is not subject to protection. Check with Chris, by all means, to see whether he wants you to edit that. But the News template is not protected, and any registered user may edit it. It even has a link at the bottom: "Post News." That allows you to publish new items of news without changing the Main Page layout, which is protected.--TemlakosTalk 19:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Regarding Main Page News Headlines
I was wondering if I am able to update the news headlines, I would love to do that most days, if possible as I am always on the web looking at the news and have the time. --Tony Sommer 19:22, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Yes definitely. You can update the Current events page also. But the News lists should only be used for news specifically related to creation apologetics. The main page news list is used for press releases over the past 12 months, and as that page should be limited to the current length, the news posted there must be very selective. Also note that qualifying news should also be redundantly posted to one of the news archive pages also, so they arent lost when their 12 month term expires.
Personally, I dont feel either of the news items you just posted are suitable for the main page or subject news archive pages. However, it is suitable to place such news stories in the footer of the appropriate article. I would suggest that you instead place the following news items in the footer of the stem cell and DNA replication articles.
I would simply use the External links section and maybe create a news section in Bold (not a level 3 heading). We really dont want the reference or links section to have subheadings and stretch the menu.
- Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created Without The Destruction Of Embryos Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. together with colleagues announced the development of five human embryonic stem cell (hESC) lines without the destruction of embryos. ScienceDaily. Jan. 12, 2008.
- Epigenetics: New Discoveries About The Protein That Oversees DNA Replication At the Institut Curie, the CNRS team of Geneviève Almouzni(1) has just discovered how the protein Asf1 ensures the correct (re)organization of duplicated DNA. ScienceDaily. Jan. 11, 2008.
Hey tony, I am editing MATCH stuff on my talk page now. Feel free to come over and drop any thoughts comments or project material.--Tylerdemerchant 16:55, 17 January 2008 (EST)
good changes to the stem cell article.
This is a way better way to do references.--Tylerdemerchant 14:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Which should be used for what. Are we essentially aiming to move all biblical characters into the Biblical person category instead? --Tony Sommer 17:20, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Yes. When a category becomes fully developed, we will divide the contents into subcategories. There may be some lingering need for that category for articles that dont fall into other categories. Otherwise, we're now using these instead.
- Category:Biblical person
- Category:Biblical place
- Category:Biblical group
- Category:Biblical artifact
- Category:Religious icon
Do not delete content
In the future, propose deletions (more than a sentence long) using the discussion page and it will be removed if deemed appropriate. This a site-wide policy that we expect all users to uphold.
We need someone updating the Portals periodically and I thought maybe you'd be up for it.
It would involve updating the various Portal items, such as the lists of article and categories. But also selecting new featured articles, pictures, and bios. The updates are done through the various templates that make-up the page. Take a look and see what you can do.Portal:Biology
- Tony - since we were offline for a while after bringing this up the first time, I thought it deserved another mention. Let me know if you need any guidelines or cant figure out how to edit the portals. Its a little tricky, but the page is simply a composite of templates. You would need to use the category for the portal subject (i.e. [[category:biology]]) to update the list of articles and categories. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
Should Intelligent Design be considered a Scientific technique? --Tony 14:19, 8 March 2008 (PST)
- No - I dont think so. A scientific technique is generally thought of as a physical process that is performed during the course of research. While ID can refer to a research program, its not a technique. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (PDT)
- I also edited while you were editing and I hope I didnt screw anything up. I think it is very important that we emphasize "why" these mutations are not mathematicaly probable. If evolutionists simply say that many, many accumulated mutations would eventually be related is ludicrous because then 1000 more mutations would be unrelated or even related in a negative manner. I also wrote a pretty big responce to scorpionman's question on the talk page ;)--Tylerdemerchant 00:24, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Did you see the news item on the Jordanians discovering what they claim is the oldest church ever discovered? I don't know if that would be of any use to you for the ecclesiastical history page, but I thought I would mention it to you. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, what about insertions. Wouldnt these be new information?
for example, in a double helix, there could be a random insertion, couldnt there?--Tylerdemerchant 20:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
about us consitution edit
Am I not allowed to add to the Federalist Papers section, in which I originally wrote on CW? --Tony 18:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes - you may perform copyedits on text you wrote. In this case, you reintroduced two typos - one that I had fixed. (Federalis Papers & ultimatley).
It is highly advisable that you setup a method of doing spell checking. There are two methods that can be used on the CreationWiki. The Firefox browser has an automatic spell checking function when in edit mode - to do so in Explorer you must install the Google toolbar, which has a forms spell-checking function. --Ashcraft - (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- or install the iespell plugin. I can e-mail it to you if you want. --Tylerdemerchant 07:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- did you get it?--Tylerdemerchant 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
typos and grammer
I would of fixed such typos once I was finished, since you started correcting things that I wasn't ready to do yet, I let you take over. --Tony 06:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
You might have seen that I edited Evolution so as to better refute Darwinist claims about convergent evolution. I hope that helps bring the CPOV to a close, along with Mr. Ashcraft's superb edits to Biological evolution, but I invite you to critique my edits on that page as, I will often say, I am not an expert like yourself or Mr Ashcraft. Have a great weekend! --ThinkerTalksee my blog 12:39, 26 September 2010 (PDT)
The article Decline of atheism strikes an overly optimistic tone in my honest opinion. Though atheism has been defeated decisively in the arena of genuine philosophical and scientific debate, it continues to hijack our institutions and influence our policies more than ever before, and this article seems to say that statistical decline of secularism will change this for the better without our fighting it. Please go over there and state your opinion. BTW, I liked your edits to the political articles.--ThinkerTalksee my blog 16:22, 1 October 2010 (PDT)
a little help
I really badly need to know how to force a line break in the code, when pressing enter on the edit page doesn't register as a space... -EriK 10:58, 10 October 2010 (PDT)
Ok, great, will do. Check out the new page I made yesterday. I finished the section on Gould, and I must say it's "pwnage," to use netspeak...
why is it, that you can do whatever you want with my content, but I can't? You deleted my content, instead of suggesting better use like you always tell us to do. Also the list of seven letters by Igantius is found nowhere else on this encyclopedia. So you just deleted my content with no replacement? --Tony 12:35, 2 December 2010 (PST)
Tony - you seem to have a problem working under authority. I have given you instructions repeatedly, which you seem to just disregard after a period of time. You are an established user - who should know and be able to follow the rules, but your tendency to violate specific administrative directives have forced me to continue to check your edits. To be honest, you would have been made a sysop long ago, except for this specific concern.
I had explained the reason for the deletions from that page in the edit summary. You reversed the edit (which is a clear violation of policy) forcing me to restore my previous deletion. You know full well that reversing administrative edits is specifically forbidden, and you did it anyway - twice actually. Doing so is an example of what appears to be a defiance of authority. Your defensive manner when edited is another.
To answer specifically, it is duty of the admins to decide which edits should stay. By contrast, users are not permitted to make major changes without providing justification. In addition, they may not make substantial deletions - instead they must make recommendations to the administration who will make those decisions.
My edits are a service aimed at improving the overall quality of the site - you should try to look at them that way - rather than seeing them as an intrusion. --Ashcraft - (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2010 (PST)
Thanks for the encouragement, Tony.--John Baab 04:40, 8 December 2010 (PST)
- Hello brother. I have answered you there. If you find this information interesting you may try to search publications of Althukhov and other genetics in English. I think it should be. Please accept my deepest appologies for bad English, I am Russian-speaker only. Alexander Korolev 09:38, 23 March 2011 (PDT)
producing genetic convergence
Creationists view created kinds of life with intrinsic boundaries diversifying through parallel lines (a polyphyletic origin of life) of biological evolution producing what is known as genetic convergence.
This edit and your subsequent response is yet another example of your tendency to post your opinions rather than sourced creationist perspectives, and the problem you seem to have working under authority. You are defensive when your additions are edited or reversed, and I have spoken to you about both of these problems before.
- Your edit reason of "Taxonomy is not naming organisms, but grouping (classifying) them based on shared characteristics" seems incorrect based on those sources because certainly naming them is an integral part of taxonomy. Also you mischaracterized my position as I didn't say that taxonomy is naming organisms, but that naming organisms is one of the "essential principles of taxonomic classification".--Tony 13:39, 26 May 2011 (PDT)
|“||Linnaeus's inspiration surely goes back further, thousands of years prior even. The historiography about Adam in the Old Testament book of Genesis chapter 2 tells about his search for a suitable fellowship partner. In this attempt Adam names every creature of Gods creation practicing essential principles of taxonomic classification of animals thousands of years before the modern system was conceived.||”|
To address your edit: you claimed in essense that Adam was the father of taxonomy, which could not be more incorrect. Taxonomy is the practice of classifying oganisms - meaning grouping them into a hierarchy based on similarities to other organisms. Names are given to groups of organisms, and to individuals based on their group assignments. The species names they are given are based on the group (genus) name. Furthermore, the names of the groups or species are often altered as views on evolutionary relationships change. There is no indication from scripture that Adam was doing anything of the sort, but simply giving them names. Giving animals names is not "practicing essential principles of taxonomic classification" - not even close.
I have had to reverse or edit an inordinant number of additions from you - mostly on the science articles. As a result, I am now requiring that you add no content to science articles that is not supported by credible creationist references (i.e. Creation magazine, Journal of Creation, Acts & Facts, Answers magazine, etc.). This is a mandate.
It should go without saying that non-scientific articles should also be properly sourced, but my main concerns are regarding your additions related to evolution and related biological subjects. Your additions in areas of science are often not accurate representations of the creationist perspective. And as I've said before, this is not a Tony's POV site, but Creationist POV. In the future, all of your science article additions must be supported by "creationist publications".