User talk:AlanE

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, AlanE, and welcome to Conservapedia!

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

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

Thanks for reading, AlanE!

Anyone I have banned who wishes to question my decision (or for any other reason) can contact me at


Welcome back

Welcome back!

I am going to be listening to my YouTube classical music collection more as I attend to various tasks. If you want to add to it or have any suggestions, it would be most welcome. Conservative 21:39, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

Thank you Cons.
Music, especially "classical" music is a personal thing and I tend not to "suggest" things. I have gone through your Youtube selections and agree with much of it. My suggestion would be to subscribe to For 25 bucks a month you get the streaming rights to close to 100,000 CDs. Thank you again. AlanE 22:29, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
Thanks. I bookmarked it. Conservative 03:04, 6 July 2014 (EDT)


I have moved your article Dover, UK to Dover, England. Feel free to change it back but I think this option is much better SMortlach 01:51, 10 July 2014 (EDT0

Doesn't worry me. In speech,I prefer the individual countries to the increasingly ubiquitous "UK" anyway. You do realise there are other English placenames with "UK" after them to separate them from things you eat, grow or have the first name "Mitt". I sometimes think that naming their county would be even better than using "England". Rugby Warwickshire is a case in point. AlanE 02:49, 10 July 2014 (EDT)

Main page link

For the story about the angry Burger King worker kicking down the anti-abortion signs, the link posted went to a story about Uganda. I've got a link for the actual story. You're welcome. :) [1] Atum 22:45, 13 July 2014 (EDT)

Not me, mate. You have the wrong editor. I haven't even read the Main Page today. AlanE 23:51, 13 July 2014 (EDT)

The invisible WWI

The First Wold War has been on my mind a bit recently. You see, the War began 100 years ago last week.

Every year about this time I disappear into my “study” (you Yanks would call it a “den”) and listen (loudly) to Britten’s ‘’War Requiem”; Handel and Bach in turn get a pounding at certain other times of the year.

Then yesterday I read of the death of a great Australian classical composer, Peter Sculthorpe. I spent the rest of the day with CDs of his music as my companions. One of his shorter pieces is ‘’Small Town’’ an evocation of any of the villages and towns dotted across the continent from Peter’s own northern Tasmania to the arid outback. The middle movement of this work consists of the haunting ‘’Last Post’’ featuring a solo trumpet – you see, every small town has a war memorial.

Or so it seems from my observations during over 50 years of poking around the backblocks of this big country. Sometimes it is in the grounds of the local church, often attached to the community hall, frequently part of the public playground/picnic area beside the local sports ground.; which is called “The Memorial Oval” or similar. I have seen this mini cenotaph stand alone amongst the detritus of a settlement that died when the mine or cannery closed or the new main road bypassed it or there was one drought or flood too many. No doubt there were times when the sheer sad weight of numbers on the remembrance board made life seem untenable for those remaining, so the memorial was erected by a town already dying.

A trip around New Zealand reveals much the same; and it may interest some that, in England and Wales, there are so few villages or parishes that survived the War without casualties that they are called “Thankful Villages”. At last count, there are only 52 of them.

I know America didn’t join the War until 1917, and I know its number of casualties compared to total population was not as great so the War may not as indelible on the national consciousness, but I find the complete lack of recognition of this centenary on Conservapedia’s Main Page most disappointing. AlanE 20:33, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

Thanks Cons for spitting on the war dead you miserable bastard! Anyone who uses the death of millions to further their ideological arguments needs a great deal of pity! AlanE 21:14, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
Your reaction essentially comes down to "I'm offended" which is not a legitimate criticism of the historical analysis which was offered. Conservative 22:00, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
You're right Cons.I am offended. For the same reason I am offended by anyone who shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding - conscience, whatever, for the feelings of another. You really don't understand, do you? I pity you. AlanE 22:21, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
You are being immature, unreasonable and intolerant. These are often the attributes of those who want to censor inconvenient facts which criticize their errant ideology. Conservative 22:44, 9 August 2014 (EDT)

I love it Cons, I love it. "Immature. unreasonable and intolerant." Love it! Three adjectives that my family and those that know me would disagree with. {Do you have a family, Cons? Wife? Children?) Have you ever got out from behind your keyboard and traveled your country. Cons? Have you ever made love, Cons, or are you a 40's something virgin?

I expressed disappointment at CP's failure to feature WWI in it's main page and you carry on about Darwinism. You have a problem my lad.AlanE 23:19, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
You come to Conservapedia and then get upset when Christian religious conservatism is expressed which is buttressed by legitimate historical analysis. You are the one with the problem and it is a self-imposed problem. The price of freedom is a free society is hearing views that you don't agree with. If you don't like this, then do your best to stay in a self-imposed liberal cocoon. In the meantime, I am going to let freedom ring on the main page. Conservative 23:28, 9 August 2014 (EDT)
I take your feeble attempt at a personal attack as any admission you lost the argument on this issue. Furthermore, liberals don't have a great track record when it comes to people who disagree with them, so I have very little desire to discuss my personal life with someone who preaches the virtue of sensitivity and engages in blatant hypocrisy. This holds true for anyone who may edit using the User: Conservative account. In short, I/we are not going to wrestle in the proverbial mud with someone who is acting like a swine. Conservative 00:34, 10 August 2014 (EDT)
You really do have a problem Cons. If you can take someone's ruminations and turn them in to an ideological diatrbe then I don't kmow what I can do. The people, Cons, who grieve at the memorials do not give a stuff, Cons, about some American idiot who thinks that Darwin has something to do with it. I thought when I wrote my bit on my talk page I would meet someone with at least a tab of humanity. Obviously not.AlanE 02:00, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

In the United States, we focus more on Memorial Day and Veterans Day (which marked the end of WW I). There are many WW I memorials. In Washington DC, there is a memorial in the form of a round limestone structure held up by Greek columns that is between the Korean and WW II Memorials. At the University were I studied there was an archway with the names of the dead engraved in the stone walls. I think that we mark the anniversary of the end of the war rather than its start because we are optimistic and hope for a world free of conflict. Many people felt that WW I was avoidable and a dumb failure of leadership. Certainly the military leaders showed no regard for human life.

This month we are marking the 200th anniversary of the British burning Washington DC in the War of 1812. We are having war reenactors, a Wikipedia editing session and two 5K runs. Many people view the War of 1812 as needless and others view it as actually a second phase of the American Revolution against Britain. I wonder how people 200 years from today will view the conflicts in the Middle East -- will they explain it as a religious war or a war for oil resources? WW I was "the war to end all wars" and gave us the League of Nations. WW II was a "just war" and gave us the United Nations. When I was a young student, I was taught that if only the USSR was not around provoking wars, we would have world peace. Well, look how the Cold War ended.... Thanks, Wschact 03:13, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

In Australia we have Armistice Day (your Veterans Day) - the whole country stops for a period of silence at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.) On this day we honour the war dead of all nations but it is not a national holiday. On 25 April we, with New Zealand, have Anzac Day when we honour our own fallen. There are dawn services at war memorials all over both countries, and veterans and current military personnel march in all the cities and bigger towns after which old veterans get together in pubs and clubs all over the country.
Anzac stands for Australia and New Zealand Army Corp which fought in the ill prepared and badly led Gallipoli Campaign in 1915. The campaign is said to have "blooded" the two young nations.
The reason the outbreak of WWI is being commemorated at this time this year more than in other years is for the same reason you are remembering the War of 1812 this year more than is normal. Britain and Germany went to war on 4th August 1914 - 100 years ago.
These times are for honouring the fallen and thanking the returned - not for making deliberately provocative ideological points.
Thanks for writing. AlanE 16:04, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

AlanE, I cited the historian Jacques Barzun about the role of Darwinism in creating a powderkeg in Europe relative to WWI. Barzun was a French born and noted American historian, who was awarded the American Presidential Medal of Freedom and who was knighted into the French Legion of Honor. I also cited Annika Mombauer, senior lecturer in history at the Open University in London and the author of numerous books and articles on World War I. I cited a quality article as well which documented its contentions. You can label my material deliberately provocative and ideological all you want, but I certainly did not cite ideologues to make some of my strongest points. See: World War I and Darwinism

Instead, what you offered in return was name calling, feeble personal attacks and hysterics.

You might be reasonable in other matters, but when it comes to Darwinism, you have been very unreasonable and closed-minded which are not the characteristics of someone wanting to conduct valid historical investigations. One of the roles of an encyclopedia is to provide a resource on historical matters. And you have offered no reasonable historical information in opposition to the material I offered. You merely asserted it was idiotic to think that Darwinist ideology was a causal factor for WWI. Argument by mere assertion is illegitimate. And you compounded your illogical behavior by acting in a boorish manner.

Lastly, if you contend that social Darwinism did not play a very significant role in terms of being a causal factor for WWI, could you please give me the full name of Charles Darwin's most famous work? Was the title of this book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life? Conservative 17:03, 10 August 2014 (EDT)

Sorry to be late with this, Cons. It seems Markman has been interfering with my access to CP and I have just got back on.
So... I am not going to give you the full name of the book in the shelf behind me. Nor am I going to ask you the title of the book that brought on on the Spanish Inquisition or, more importantly, that was the prime cause of the Thirty Years' War.
So let us relax Cons and believe what we each believe. AlanE 23:16, 11 August 2014 (EDT)
Markman has been banned for some time now now. My guess is that your IP was accidentally banned for awhile. Next time, go to another location and tell Andy via another username that your account was accidentally blocked. Conservative 00:08, 12 August 2014 (EDT)
Second, I have no problem being less of a warrior or more of diplomat. I can switch hats readily. :) Conservative 00:07, 12 August 2014 (EDT)
Smile Coms.
Two minutes after I reverted an edit that reverted my User page to "Die Wanker" I found myself unable to edit - indeed unable to even reach CP. I spent two plus hours this morning (my time - remember I live in a different time zone to you) with a friendly nerd from my ISP fixing things. If you are not aware that Markman has not appeared under various guises in recent times then methinks you don't know what's going on about you. And yes, I did go to "another location" within CP and he was most helpful but it still took my ISP some time to sort things out. My account had not been blocked, Cons. my ISP had been prevented from accessing CP. AlanE 02:37, 12 August 2014 (EDT)
Markman (who has been blocked) and his subsequent short lived incarnations doesn't have blocking rights. You were not blocked by Markman or any of his subsequent incarnations. I am not really concerned about Markman as I have higher priority things to attend to. Conservative 02:58, 12 August 2014 (EDT)
'Morning Cons. Read my post above. I didn't say I was blocked. I was...oh never mind. AlanE 15:01, 12 August 2014 (EDT)
OK. No worries. Conservative 16:27, 12 August 2014 (EDT)

I created a few stub articles but those are the exceptions that prove the rule

I created a few stub articles today, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule. :)

I created them to assist readers in terms of the Atheism and intelligence article. Conservative 22:16, 19 September 2014 (EDT)

Cons, why are you defending something no one has accused you of? Have I accused you of writing stubs?
As far as the budgie comment is concerned: if I were to write a further 200 words on the subject it would either be from my own knowledge of the little bird (can't have that these days can we? - not post Markman) or I would have to turn the article into something resembling a field guide. I don't consider the budgie article a stub. It gives a succinct, no frills, account of what the bird is from the point of view of someone who knows the bird, has kept the bird and has a 50 year familiarity with its habits both domestically as a single bird and in its thousands in the wild.
And a further 200 words would only bring the article up to 450 words or thereabouts.
And while I have you..... I am afraid Joey may have taken your 600 words comments literally and is casting about for places to put "stubs" without having the knowledge to do it correctly. I came across Pride's Purge. He plonked it into Oliver Cromwell. Now I know that, whatever other bastardry Cromwell did, he had nothing to do with purging the Parliament of the King's supporters. He was on the road when it happened and I have recollections of his feeling somewhat aggrieved when he found out about it on his arrival in London. I'll have no trouble changing the edit when I have time to delve into my library but I needn't have to.
He is also taking "suggestions" as requests. Hence Dumbarton. (Which I will add to in my inimitable style when I have time.)
Cheers AlanE 03:11, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
I understand that generally not writing stubs is a good principle and not an ironclad rule. Feel free to edit as you wish. I will send a message to JoeyJ. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
And Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Conservative 05:55, 26 September 2014 (EDT)
Put a quick note on JoeyJ's talk page for you. Thanks for all your contributions. Keep up the good work. :) Conservative 06:04, 26 September 2014 (EDT)


Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: The collaborative project. Conservative 21:51, 25 December 2014 (EST)

Sent you an email

I sent you an email. It has to do with getting you picture uploading rights among other things. Conservative 23:48, 27 December 2014 (EST)

Reply to Wschact

You wrote on my User Page, the following:

Red links advice to User:TheAmericanRedoubt

Dear AlanE: Please look at Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Quality_over_speed where we have counseled User:TheAmericanRedoubt to take time to create new articles of sufficient length and scope. His reply is that you have been after him to make his red links blue and that therefore he is creating a large number of 1 sentence articles (with attendant See Also, Bibliography and External Links sections). Could you please clarify your guidance? It seems to me that if an editor does not believe it is worthwhile to write an article about CETME, then one could refrain from making an internal link to it. Many thanks! Wschact 05:47, 7 January 2015 (EST)

On December 10 when TAR was only just getting into gear in his orgy of linking everything to everything I evoked Lewis Carroll in an effort to get him to "tidy up as he went."

I wrote: The proliferation of red wikilinks in your edits reminds me of the Walrus and the Carpenter:

The walrus and the carpenter were walking close at hand,
They wept like anything to see such quantities of sand.
"If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
Do you suppose," the walrus said, "that they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it " said the carpenter, and wept a bitter tear.
I have tended to sweep up after me the links I have generated in my 200odd thousand words of edits here. Who has the job of sweeping up the multiple links you are throwing around with gay (ahem) abandon? I think you should start sweeping, boyo, because, from bitter experience, I know no one else is going to do it. AlanE 22:29, 10 December 2014 (EST)

That was nearly a month ago. My point was to get him to (a) lay off the links (stop generating so much sand) and (b) activate those links he does feel are necessary (sweep away what is already there).

I had no idea then of the sheer amount of red that would inundate the place. Perhaps I should have been a little less literary. I mentioned the maids with their brooms again on Dec 27 as part of something else. Cons put it so much clearer than I in that same Dec 27 conversation.

Cheers AlanE 14:58, 7 January 2015 (EST)

The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia

I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous User:Wschact, you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than anything I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry User:Aschlafly, User:Conservative, User:Karajou and User:Jpatt, but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 4 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were User:Wschact or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless.

Sadly, I no longer have the enthusiasm to contribute in the face of such 'strong' opposition from 5 very vociferous liberal/RINO editors. It's more of an uphill battle than it was on Wikipedia, I am very disappointed to say. Godspeed in all you do.

TheAmericanRedoubt 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

The red link invasion will stop :)

I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt. The red link invasion will stop. :)

Thanks for all your contributions and generally (we all have our moments) being an amiable editor. Conservative 10:14, 11 January 2015 (EST)

I contacted TheAmericanRedoubt about the red link situation

Two things:

1. He is going to be lighter on the red links, but not completely stop. It would require a lot of extra work for him to completely stop.

2. He is going to be a long term editor so the red links will be filled in. He isn't counting on others to fill in the links.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Conservative 14:14, 14 January 2015 (EST)

Top of the mornin' to you Alan

And g'day to you too, Cons.
Just reminding you all that this site was created for Andy's home school students and should be factually correct. AlanE 00:05, 15 January 2015 (EST)
No worries. King Solomon said to be happy when people correct you (Proverbs 9:8). I made the corrections. Conservative 00:09, 15 January 2015 (EST)
Yes, Cons: I know what King Solomon said and I know and appreciate what you did. So. Do you want to delete that silly woman off my talk page or shall I?
Thank you.AlanE
I like the version of the song recorded by the Irishman John McCormack the best and he appears to have made the first recording of the song. But I was not aware it was composed by Irish-American New Yorkers. Conservative 00:51, 15 January 2015 (EST)
The McCormick version is famous. I have it here somewhere in my jungle of old 78s etc., The Kenneth McKellar version is as good and more modern. It's a matter of taste. AlanE 01:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Transferred from User talk:EJamesW

Cons: please...

...if you feel you must spray, please spray in your own yard. Normal standards of behaviour don't seem to apply to you do they? Open a new playground if you must, and leave his talk page to what it is designed to be - his own talk page. Or transfer it to mine - I'm used to it. AlanE 22:31, 28 January 2015 (EST)

AlanE, EJamesW several times has given me a hard time about creating numerous atheism articles for a......ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Incredible! He asked me several times to justify creating them. And this is despite his user page hypocritically declaring he wants to see opposing information to his atheist worldview.
Well, I decided to show him that I am going to stand my ground! Christians will not be muzzled by atheists at Conservapedia!!!!
Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around...
Turn me around...
Turn me around...
Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around...
Keep on a-walkin'
Keep on a-talkin'
Marchin' up to freedom land. :) Conservative 22:54, 28 January 2015 (EST)
Get off his yard onto your own, Cons! Common decency. Heard of it? Possibly. Subscribe to it? No. AlanE 23:09, 28 January 2015 (EST)
I wish the evolutionists heard of common decency and didn't force their views on others children.
Second, I stand by my previous statement. Conservative 23:32, 28 January 2015 (EST)
That's good Cons. You ain't gonna let nobody turn you around. Not to mention others children. While you are doing that you can teach Andy's homeschoolers how to talk proper. AlanE 00:06, 29 January 2015 (EST)
Not going to post on his user page unless I absolutely need to. Working on an important project that is starting to bear fruit. Also, launching new project next week, God willing.
In short, I am being more of a initiator/diplomat/facilitator right now and less of a warrior.  :) Conservative 12:29, 29 January 2015 (EST)

Thank you!

Please see: Talk:Victorian paintings --Joaquín Martínez 22:06, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

Constitutional monarchy

Why did you delete this term from the list of ancient terms? It is said "Aristotle organized the collection of one hundred and fifty-eight Greek constitutions". Don't you suppose that at least one of these was a monarchy? VargasMilan (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2015 (EDT)

My bad. I missed the reference to Plato therefore considered the subject not to include Ancient History. I'll put it back. I do think, however, that if an item is in a Category it should actually have information in it that is covered by that Category. AlanE (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2015 (EDT)