User talk:Mdotley
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Thanks for the corrections. :)--Nlawrence 09:35, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
Let me explain my actions. I was testing something for personal use. I wanted to see how the editor worked when you changed one character. I noticed that if you erase one put in the same type, it wouldn't show up on recent changes. I then realize that there was a loop hole in the system. If I could erase and put the same, why couldn't I put in something else? Good thing for us I shows up when you do that. I wanted to see if I was possible for a vandal to use this method to vandalize. --Nlawrence 21:00, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
America
- No problem Mdotley, I am happy to help in anyway on CreationWiki! --Tony Sommer 14:45, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
COPPA
Does this website permit posting of personally identifiable information for users under 13 years old? ~ MD Otley (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
There is currently no policy prohibiting it. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
I found it.
As you can see, I found where a certain user-who-shall-remain-nameless had moved your Talk page to, and managed to move it back.--TemlakosTalk 11:28, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
- Excellent! You are a jewel among SysOps. :-) ~ MD Otley (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Insertions
The answer to your question is both. Even if you add noise to a page, you are still adding information. It may be usefull information, it may not. in terms of genetics, it is more like adding a random 1 or 0 to the binary of this page. A single insertion will destroy the page, as you will have a frame shift. However, if you add 8 at once, you might be producing a character that has a random effect.
It may be noise, but it is still information.
In my opinion, insertions have the potential to add random information, but the ratio of chance between harm and good is huge. you need to have an insertion that places 3 nucleotides ( 3,6,9,) and it can not make a stop codon by accident, and it can not destroy a stop codon. You are basicly adding an amino acid in this case, which usually will cause the protein to denature, rendering it useless.
The point is that this is theory, and I am trying to find a visual representation of an insertion event, as I cant seem to on youtube.--Tylerdemerchant 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
!
Appreciate the fixes:). Ungtss 21:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. That's what I'm here for! ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Zbocaj
Sure! I was glad I could be of service.
--Zbocaj 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia
Conservapedia cannot allow anonymous editing. We have a constant problem with vandalism.
But why not apply for an editor's account? They're easy to obtain, and you can surely establish a track record of good edits. Eventually you would be allowed to edit even at night.--TemlakosTalk 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio
Several pages have had blocks of copyrighted text added to them recently. The young earth evidences were copied directly from Evolution Cruncher, by Vance Ferrell. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Use the discussion pages of the articles in question - identifying the source - so that the author of the page has a chance to provide the necessary permissions for use. I have already contacted the author of the young earth evidence text, which was originally placed on the geochronology page.
--Ashcraft - (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
News Headline
There ARE concerns about synthetic lifeforms. The article in question did not address them, however here is an interview that Michael Anisimove did with Dr. Alan Goldstein: http://lifeboat.com/ex/interview.alan.h.goldstein and here is an article about possible threats; http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=07/10/14/17393328. Could you tell me what I did wrong? —unsigned comment by Notodivorce (talk • contribs)
Pre-feature articles
Do you keep a list of articles that you expect or hope to feature? Posting that could guide the community to help make sure they are the best they can be. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is a page where recommendations for features are listed.
CreationWiki:Recommend feature
The link to it can be found on the feature category page. But to improve recommendations, it might need better placement. --Ashcraft - (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since you wiped your talk page, I'm going to assume you're watching mine for any response.
- I found that page, through the feature article category, but a quick glance through the History shows that it hasn't been used since it was created over a year ago. Since you have actually featured articles since then, you're obviously filling the queue from some other source. I was just wondering if you had some advance list on the site of articles that you plan to feature. If not, then you might want to create one. I want to help, but I can't read your mind. :-) ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia
Just got in touch with Administrator Jpatt on Conservapedia. He says to tell you that your account is unblocked and you may use the same user name.
The trouble is that right at the time of this writing, Conservapedia is giving out HTTP 500 errors. I do not know how long that state of affairs will last.--TemlakosTalk 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Uncategorized images
I was thinking about tackling the 500+ uncategorized images. What do you think of having some specialized Image categories? Here's one idea of how the tree could look. Most of the Images by Subject categories would also be subcats of related non-Image categories (e.g., Biology Images in Category:Biology and Bible Person Images in Category:Biblical person). Having the Images segregated into their own categories helps the other Category pages load faster and look much less cluttered. What do you think? ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thats a very valid proposal and I've been giving it a lot of thought, but still not sure that using image-specific categories is the way to go.
- We've been creating identical categorization structures on the Text and Pool sites and I think its best to maintain that consistency. Having different categories for images here might confuse users about how images should be categorized on the Pool.
- Such categorization work is much better invested on the Pool. There are a great many more uncategorized images there - plus we have been systematically moving images from the English site to the Pool and that will continue.
- A great many images that were uploaded to the Pool are categorized on the English site as well and this was done using a non-image-specific categorization. But, I'm not sure that is a good use of time either. It might be best to limit image categorization to the Pool..
Anyway - those are some thoughts. I've done most of the categorization, so let me know if you need further clarification or direction in that area...
