The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

User talk:RichardT

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Please observe discussion policy and respect all usertalk content as private.

There's a line-break within the text of that title - between Cosmic & Distance, which is why the other half of the title is on the next line. Backspace between the words to take it out, then put a space back between them.


The page you are working on has some formatting issues related to how you are doing your references. Hold up for a second and let me get you on the right path. I'll fix a couple of things - then follow my lead.

To cite a reference within the paper:

1. Webpage - Insert the internet address at the end of a sentence surrounded by single brackets (i.e. [http://www.example.com] ). The website software will then automatically assign the address a number based its order in the paper. For example the above would appear like - [1].
2. Book / Article - Insert the authors last name and page number within the text - i.e (Purves, p89), and place the full citation in the bibliography using standard MLA formatting.

To cite the references in the bibliography:

1. Webpage - place the website address next to an asterisk (which creates a bullets) followed by the page title within single brackets.
i.e. * [http://www.example.com PageTitle] by John Doe. Chembook Online.
The above format will link the specified title to the internet address. For example the above would appear like:
2. Book / Article - Use standard MLA formatting.

--Mr. Ashcraft 14:48, 2 December 2006 (EST)

TO: Richard

If you want to work on the Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction article like you stated here are some links which will help you: http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Sex_can%27t_have_evolved and http://creationwiki.org/Talk:%28Talk.Origins%29_Sex_can%27t_have_evolved

Creationist 05:16, 9 December 2006 (EST)creationist

Discussion

Sorry to bother you again Mr. Ashcraft, but I seriously hate getting my faith shipwrecked everywhere I go, I started up a thread on christianforums about the RATE group and some findings, and it seems they have just ripped this apart, and I have no idea how to answer them... These people on the forums make it seem like big creationist organizations are simply out there to deceive. Please tell me if there was anything wrong with the way I presented my argument, or if what they were saying was correct/incorrect... The thread I started can be found here : http://www.christianforums.com/t4535327 RichardT 01:03 7 January 2007

Such forums are not new. I've moderated a similar forum for many years. They tend to be dominated by people who are against Christianity or creationism, and who have no real desire to learn from the discussion. Such people are there simply to argue and put-down those with different views. Most are rude and uncivil. Although there can be some benefit from the participation, especially for those wanting to hone their debate skill, I have no desire to waste time trying to convince people who will not be convinced.

I tend to warn people away from such forums. However, they can illustrate deficiencies in knowledge and encourage you to study. But realize, that may be the only benefit you get from the participation and grief at the hands of an oftentimes unruly mob.

So thats a definite no to your request. I would also have to direct you to the CreationWiki discussion policy. The CreationWiki is built to be a resource of research materials and can be useful in obtaining such information. However, it is not a discussion forum and should not be used as such - directly or indirectly. For future reference, please do not contact the CreationWiki editors with requests to help in offsite forum debates.

Besides - you will only benefit from the participation if you do the research and equip yourself to answer the challenges. --Mr. Ashcraft 12:23, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Abuse of Talk Pages

Richard, I find your use of the CreationWiki Talk Pages to be extremely abusive. By my count, you have sent me 21 message in the last 3 days to help with your debate forum.

Any further use of the talkpages may result in a suspension of your editorial privileges. Consider this a strong warning. Limit all future discussion to page content - not related subjects.

Do not post debate forum comments, links, quotes, or anything of the sort here. That is simply another attempt of yours to have the CreationWiki editors help you with your debates. I now suspect that the page you started on frequent objections to creationism was setup for the exact same purpose. And please do not reply to the discussion between me and my students - totally inappropriate. --Mr. Ashcraft 23:17, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Double redirects

Hi Richard,

I received your e-mail and that would be great for you to help. First go to Special pages, it is located on the left-hand corner in the "toolbox." Then go to Double redirects. Now go down to #19.(I'm just using 19. as an example) It looks like this: Hitler based his views on Darwinism (Edit) →‎ (Talk.Origins) Hitler based his views on Darwinism →‎ Hitler based his views on Darwinism (Talk.Origins) You need to click on the first link on any of them; for example the first link on this double redirect is Hitler based his views on Darwinism. After you click it you can see the redirect. Click "edit" then change the redirect to the last link, which would be in this case Hitler based his views on Darwinism (Talk.Origins). Got that? :) The problem is that when searches on CreationWiki Hitler based his views on Darwinism, it goes to a pretty much empty page (except for the actual redirect). So all these need to be redirected to the actual content page. --A. MorrisTalk 08:15, 18 April 2007 (EST)

So does that mean you're already done?

Yeah, I just did the last ones not too long ago. But actually I don't think we're finished. Mr. Chris Ashcraft was still moving talk.origins responses no too long ago and was thus making double redirects. --A. MorrisTalk 19:37, 18 April 2007 (EST)


Just to let you know, there is about 200 double redirects. Have you tried editing any double redirects yet? Let me know if you have problems with doing it. --A. MorrisTalk 20:26, 19 April 2007

There are several double redirects now if you want to do them. --A. MorrisTalk 20:21, 24 April 2007

Ok, go to the double redirects, then go down to number 12. Click on the first link "CI010" and you will see that it redirects to "There is a law of conservation of information". That page needs to be edited to direct to "There is a law of conservation of information (Talk.Origins)." Do you understand? --A. MorrisTalk 20:33, 24 April 2007


Actually you did it! But don't remove content off the page I had to restore it. Try another without removing content.--AJ 20:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Mike Wong

No, there really is no reason to take him seriously. Ha, just one look at the home page of CreationTheory should give you some laughs. He claims that young earth creationists are "very powerful in America because they're so well funded." HA ha! Everyone ought to know that YEC's are the most persecuted religion in America, even by other Christians! This guy is arguing from ignorance, in hopes that the idiots in this country will take him seriously and turn towards his propaganda. He even says the Bible is immoral; another argument from ignorance. He even points out a "contradiction" in the Bible which is obviously NOT a contradiction. We can just read his junk for laughs and move on. Scorpionman 20:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk.Origins

I think you've figured it out, but just in case - its (Talk.Origins) not (TalkOrigins).

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

broken english

It's not broken english for any other site on the WWW, I have a hard time editing pages or pretty much doing anything, the only reason I can edit this page for example is because I remember where the edit button is located. Did you change the font for the creationwiki? If not, can you tell me what the cause of this might be? Thanks Mr. Ashcraft.

-- RichardTTalk 11:03, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

No. The language that is displayed is controlled by either your preference settings on the CreationWiki and those of your browser. Its set to detect the default language of your browser and display the menu titles to match.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Images

How do I help organize the images exactly? Do you know?

Richard,

Why don't you just leave a message on my talk page? Well, all I know to tell you about the images is click on Random page on the left in the "participate" box. Then click on any images on whatever page you end up on, and categorize the images according to the page category. For instance, on the page Durupinar, there is an image of the Durupinar site on the top right; that image could be categorized as Turkey, Geology site, and Creationary site. Hope you understand! --Amanda M.talk  20:35, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Wait, something that would be better is to go to File list and click on the "desc" on the left of each image box. Then see what pages link to the images, and categorize the image from there.

Ok, go to image: [2], then click edit, then add [[Category:Creationist]] or/and [[Category:Creation scientist]]. You can add more than one category to an image. Are you confused to what category to add, or did I answer your question?--Amanda M.talk  20:52, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
Ok, use this image for an example. Scroll down to where is says:
===Links===
The following pages link to this file:
So click on "Maple" and scroll down to see what category the page Maple is in; which is Category:Aceraceae. Then assign that same category to the image (you can see that the image is already categorized). I suggest viewing random images to get the feel of how they are categorized; cause' that's pretty much all I can tell you. --Amanda M.talk  15:28, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Userpage

Feel free to customize your userpage any way you'd like.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk Pages

Please discontinue making minor edits to talk pages (reformatting your signature and such).[3]

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Am I?

No - when you change a talk page, it appears on the recent changes page, causing people to check it assuming there is new content.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Am I allowed to respond to other users on your talk page?

I want to discuss with the guy above who talked about Ikester's theories.

No. If you want to discuss something with another user, use their talk page.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you have a question about my recent criticisms?

I read your response on the TalkPage. Do you have a question? --Nlawrence 21:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes

I really did write that all by myself. Jonas Dalton RandT 17:51, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Probability

Did you notice that on Mr. Wong's series of articles on probability, he claims the fine-tuned universe is null because it could have gone in a totally different direction, then fails to give any evidence for this position? "Life could have arisen in a totally alien environment..." yeah yeah, evidence please! We can't even get life to arise in a simulated version of our OWN environment! He makes even John Stear look smart! Scorpionman 08:57, 3 April 2008 (PDT)