User talk:Aschlafly/Archive32

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Government Homework Question

Hi Mr. Schlafly!! I couldn't find a talk page for the government class, so I thought I would just post my question here. On question #10 do you want us to answer the question about the lifeboat, or do you only want us to answer the part about the bias in the question? Thanks.--Kevin51292 11:26, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Kevin, be sure to answer the question about bias, but your additional views about the lifeboat issue are also welcome!--Aschlafly 11:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Out of Interest

May I ask why you deleted the article on The Church of Google? There is currently an article on this Wiki Database regarding Last Thursayism, which is certainly more absurd than Google, so I'm wondering what possessed you to delete a perfectly legitimate, ubiased article. Thanks. DefiantElements 17:49, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't be silly. Perhaps the other entry you cited should be deleted also. This isn't Wikipedia, where they have an entry on "duh".--Aschlafly 18:24, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm not arguing with you, I'm merely pointing out an inconsistency and asking for some reasoning. DefiantElements 22:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Last Thursdayism appears to be a real parody, while the Church of Google does not. But I have an open mind about this, and welcome attempts to prove my view wrong.--Aschlafly 23:05, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I would disagree with the contention that it is not a parody religion. Of course, it depends what your definition of a "real parody religion" is. As far as I can tell, a parody religion is any religion which is organized and which has basic tenets (i.e. it has the groundwork of a religion), but which is too absurd, too localized, or simply too esoteric to be considered a "real" religion. So what's a parody religion? Pastafarianism? Last Thursdayism? Unicornism (or is it Invisible Pink Unicornism)? Those are parody religions in the sense that their intent is to highlight perceived fallaciousness or deficiencies in existing religion. However, if we take parody religion to refer to any mock religion, than I think the Church of Google Website makes it clear that Googlism qualifies. It features a set of logical proofs, commandments, arguments and counter-arguments. The forum itself features serious debate (some of which becomes quite intellectual) regarding the veracity of those aforementioned arguments and counter-arguments. The forum itself also demonstrates that Googlism has a stable (and indeed growing) base. From what I can tell, it fits the bill for a religion, parody or otherwise. DefiantElements 23:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
Out of interest, how would you define "religion" in general. What qualifies an organization as a "religion"? DefiantElements 23:32, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
My 2 cents if I may. The celebration of superstition and the espousal of the irrational. More elegantly, the belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe, usually by means of an organized system of faith and worship. FactFinder 10:00, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Reply

Thanks; I hope to systematically improve the President articles at some point in time. And that news is interesting; I hadn't heard that yet! DanH 00:27, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Hate Crimes Plan B?

Mr. Schlafly, have you considered what you will do if/when state or federal legislatures pass a hate crimes law that makes it a felony to offend a sodomite? Once a law like that is on the books, this website and others with entries about Sodom and Gomorrah, history of homosexuality, etc., may be vulnerable to lawsuits and criminal prosecution. Is the solution to take it offshore? Would that solve anything? Grifken 11:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

There is no plan B. Stand up for free speech rights and they won't be lost.--Aschlafly 18:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

unlocking the presidential candidates pages

Something I've been forgetting to ask about for a while... Do you think that the 2008 presidential candidates articles need to be locked? Personally I find it kind of annoying that I can't edit them and some of them (such as Fred Thompson) really need some work. Thanks--Tash 18:07, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I'll unlock them now. Thanks, Tash.--Aschlafly 18:39, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I know you're busy

But could I make a request for night editing privileges? I don't get on very late, usually, but I tried to last night and couldn't edit. My contribs are here if you'd like to review them. Thanks! ItMathers 18:47, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. You're off to a good start. Keep at it. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:57, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Hates crimes

Andy, I know you wanted to expand our hate crimes article at Conservapedia.

Peter LaBarbera has two good articles here: [1]

You can also find some VERY GOOD articles here: [2]

I hope that helps if you wish to expand that article. Conservative 19:28, 17 October 2007 (EDT)


Vandal

I found a vandal named spoonboy. It seems that he deliberately changed information on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas article in order to make a mockery out of Conservapedia. He also messed up the link on the page. Please examine his edits and take action if necessary. Lukecorlando 22:08, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

You were right. Thanks. He's been blocked for 5 years.--Aschlafly 23:55, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for your help with Noam. Frustrating to see that over and over again. ItMathers 13:19, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

User:Mathers

I was looking in the recent edits and actually noticed that Mathers started the edit war with this chomsky character. I read the differences between the Pinochet article that Mathers kept vandalizing and thought that Chomsky's edits were valids. Pinochet was a brutal monster and just because he was anti-communist doesn't mean he was necessarily a good guy. We shouldn't lie about someone just because he was an ally at one time, thats what liberals do. We should condemn all human rights abusers whether right or left wing. --NathanRodgers 13:25, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't pretend to answer for Andy, but I will defend myself. If you feel that a change needs to be made, edit warring is not the way to get what you want. Discuss the change on the talk page. Also, if you looked at the other material that was included in the Pinochet conflict you will see there is much more disinformation in there. BethanyS had just finished reverting that as well. Godspeed to you. ItMathers 13:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

American Government

If you take a look at the "Wanted Pages" page, the American Government Terms pages are at the top of the list. Would it not be better to make those pages categories, which would not only place the pages in their proper place (they are categories after all), but it would remove them from the wanted pages list. I'd be glad to do this, I just wanted to make sure it was okay first. Thanks. Paddlemantalk 13:28, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Your suggestion sounds good, but I'd like to hear input from others about your proposal, especially by students who will be affected. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:23, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
I'm going to create those pages, just like I did the other ones. --Crocoite 20:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
  • You are both more than welcome to participate in the Category discussions that have been ongoing for a couple of months now. The link is here: User:TK/SandboxCat Azriphale and I, along with a couple of others have been instituting new categories, etc. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 08:45, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Days of the Year

Mr. Schlafy, shouldn't we delete the day of the year category. Except for days like Christmas, and the 4th of July, the whole category is frivolous. It is pretty obvious that January first is the first day in January. These articles are unencyclopedia like. Lukecorlando 14:44, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone promised to build those pages. Let's give him a chance. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:49, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
  • We cannot "fill" those pages without Wikifying each and every date entered, as does Wikipedia. That automatically adds dates to their own respective pages. Problem is, based upon our decision, you agreeing, we have systematically removed all wiki date links over the past several months. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:04, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


I'm a new member...

Hi! I just stumbled across your site last night. It's great to see an answer to Wikipedia's liberal bent with such a site as this. Like many, I've been a part-time casual editor on the Wiki pages, but I would like to start doing more additions to these pages where conservative truth won't be edited out.

As a professional photographer, some of my best contributions are illustrative photos. In fact, I tried to upload this photo I previously had uploaded to Wikipedia. This photo shows a relatively unknown monument in Washington D.C. dedicated to the RIGHT to worship.

However, I don't seem to have the same upload permissions as in being a member of Wikipedia. Can this be changed?

Thanks!

--Dave 17:42, 21 October 2007 (EDT)


Request

Mr. Schlafly, I would like to request the ability to block users who vandalize. Thanks for your consideration. Greg 21:00, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

  • IMO Greg would be an even better vandal fighter then he already is, and responsible with being able to block. --şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 21:16, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Privileges granted! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:11, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! Greg 22:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Good quote....

"Liberals claim to be terrified that the Religious Right is going to take over the culture in a country where more than a million babies are exterminated every year, kindergarteners can be expelled from school for mentioning God, and Islamic fascists are welcomed on college campuses while speakers opposed to Islamic fascism are met with angry protests."

"If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism." -- Ann Coulter

--şŷŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:58, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Problem partly solved but technical problem still largely there

Andy, I emailed you about a technical problem that has big implications and I see you partly solved it. However, 90% of the problem is still there. I will email shortly about it but I have to attend to some matters for the next half hour or so. Conservative 20:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia: What next?

Dear Mr Schlafly, Oxford University's student magazine, 'Isis', is looking at the future of wiki-type resources on the web. Conservapedia's foundational role in the recent proliferation of Wikipedia-dissenting websites makes its development particularly significant. We would love to hear your views on the format's present and future. - Who do you envisage as the readership of Conservapedia. Do you hope to reach-out beyond existing Conservatives? - Do you welcome the emergence of, for instance, 'Metapedia', the European Nationalist Wikipedia-dissenting encyclopedia? - Many of Conservapedia's articles now carry the tag "permanently protected": doesn't this, vandalism aside, compromise Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia's alleged editorial bias? - How do you hope to see Conservapedia and its associated sites develop? Many thanks in anticipation of your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxford7241 (talk)

  • Who do you envisage as the readership of Conservapedia. Do you hope to reach-out beyond existing Conservatives?
REPLY: Our readership has always been people from all across the political spectrum, and we continue to reach out beyond conservatives.
  • Do you welcome the emergence of, for instance, 'Metapedia', the European Nationalist Wikipedia-dissenting encyclopedia?
REPLY: Competition is good. I haven't visited Metapedia but, in general terms, the more competition the better.
  • Many of Conservapedia's articles now carry the tag "permanently protected": doesn't this, vandalism aside, compromise Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia's alleged editorial bias?
REPLY: We only protect a tiny percentage of articles, and often unprotect them as the vandalism subsides, as we did recently in unprotecting the presidential candidate entries. We almost always comply with legitimate requests to unprotect an entry.
  • How do you hope to see Conservapedia and its associated sites develop?
REPLY: Conservapedia is a great way to learn, because one learns more efficiently by writing and editing than merely by reading. I love learning this way, and so do many students. Watch us grow! Thanks for your interest.--Aschlafly 12:39, 27 October 2007 (EDT)


Dumbledore discussion

Our discussion about Dumbledore seems to have ended quite abruptly. I want to hear what you have to say! AppleCyder 23:01, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

You already know our position on the subject, AppleCyder, and right now all you're doing is not only beating a dead horse with a stick, but violating our 90/10 rule by just engaging in all talk, and not contributing to various article content. Please contribute or leave. Karajou 23:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Karajou is right. AppleCyder, contribute in a substantive manner, or please go elsewhere. We don't allow endless talk, talk, talk, without substantive contributions. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:12, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
But that's exactly the problem... I don't know your position on the topic of homosexuality! Jesus promoted unconditional love of all people, which would include homosexuals, which is why I don't understand why so many people here seem to endorse hatred towards homosexuals (contrary to Jesus's message). I'm well aware of the 90/10 rule, but c'mon, I've only been a member here for a few hours. You haven't given me a chance to contribute!
22 out of your first 22 edits have been tiresome talk, talk, talk, in violation of our rules. You won't be warned again. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:19, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
Just to emphasize a point, you have a chance to contribute everytime you log into Conservapedia. Karajou 23:23, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Nick Griffin

Please could you do something about the front page item? It does not do Conservapedia any good to be seen to be giving any sort of backing to neoNazis like him. Thanks. Pachyderm 16:35, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, liberals are the censors. We're opposing censorship of an anti-Islamic speech, and we're not "backing" anyone.--Aschlafly 16:38, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
Griffin is the head of a neo-Nazi party (the British National Party, or BNP) which espouses discriminatory racist policies - the expulsion of non-white British citizens - and is associated with criminal violence and terrorism. I accept that you may not have been aware of this man's pedigree, but please believe me: the BNP are the UK equivalent of the KKK or Aryan Nation. You really do not want to be associated with these guys. He is not a 'Nationalist', he is a Nazi. Best, Pachyderm 16:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
It's no good sticking your head in the sand. The front page article gives comfort to Nazis. It has got to go. This isn't the first time I've had to take you to task over your slippery moral values - your denial of genocide in former Yugoslavia, your support of terrorism in Ireland. It is about time you took a good long look at yourself. Pachyderm 07:57, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Pachyderm, your shrill tone is a perfect example of Liberal Hysteria. Quit with the drumbeat of deceit! The story, and the shouting down of the man had nothing whatsoever to do with his holocaust drivel. They were shouting him down, according to all news reports, because of his views about Islamo-fascists. You totally twisting the meaning of the article around to say it implies something it never did is slippery moral values. Your own. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 08:13, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
TK, I require a response from the organ-grinder, not his monkey. Pachyderm 08:18, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Ahhh, so you are aiming at martyrdom! No need for for you to have gone to all this trouble, Pachyderm, I am happy to oblige you. Godspeed to you! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 08:22, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Pachyderm, this is not Wikipedia where smears trump logic. The point on our front page is clear and appropriate, and worth making.--Aschlafly 09:18, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Please, Andy...

Andy,

When I joined Conservapedia, I was welcomed as a good editor. I admitted to being a liberal, and admitted to not enjoying CP's viewpoint. Still, you made me a sysop.

As a sysop, I worked hard for several months to block vandals, fix pages from grammar/spelling mistakes, and watch some of the more extreme editors (Conservative, Rob, etc.) with amusement. I openly disagreed with them, but focused on the site itself, and not a pet issue to horribly misrepresent. I did this all for an ideology I did not agree with because I thought that reasonable political discourse is essential to a properly functioning society.

Having said that, I find it vile and insulting that the community which I took time and effort to help build so blatantly disregards their own commandments, favors people with no encyclopedic skill or willingness to contribute (like your homeschoolers), and stubbornly refuses to change any articles, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (deceit, atheism, and Dawkins, to name a few). It's sickening and manipulative, and only weakens the true conservative viewpoint, which is respectable.

I guess I'm just a deceitful liberal atheist communist subhuman scumbag, who's shooting you with Parthian shots. So go ahead, accuse me of deceit. Accuse me of Parthian shots, because the only reason they exist is to conveniently excuse yourself from the act of critical thinking. Accuse me of whatever you like to inflate your own ego, because the wretchedly small section of your brain which handles cognitive thought can actually believe your own lies. It's dismal that you still tramp about as an encyclopedia, and even more outrageous that you still profess to follow your own rules. Don't even get me started on your frequent hypocrisy, because my head might explode.

Continue this extremist, theocratic blog as you wish. I'm going to help R-Dubya catalog the myriad instances of error, lies, deceit, and blatant untruths that plague your blog, while promoting a saner state of mind. I've completely lost all faith in Jesus Christ because of you're twisted delivery of his message. Thank you, Andy, for delivering me to the fiery pits of hell. I guess I'll see you down there soon enough, because Lucifer has reserved a seat for your kind at his right side.

In closing, please block me for good, and Pierdol swego ojca w dupę! --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 22:49, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't know if Andy is home, Hoji, but I will honor your request. There is nothing honest in what you say above, or anywhere else, evidently. I understand you have even sent vile accusations against me to Andy and others. Nice going! Twice in the past several months when others wanted you removed, I stood up for you. As did another Sysop. We both told the others we would leave if you were removed for being on another wiki or being more "liberal" than the rest of us. And you knew about us doing that, from several sources. And yet evidently having no honor, no respect for those who supported your right to believe as you wish, you seek to injure me, and now Andy. Hopefully this isn't your true character, and just the natural, emotional upheavals of a fifteen year old, and all the mature judgment that adolescents do not have. FYI, you were removed as were three other sysops, for inactivity, nothing more. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 23:09, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, you were de-Sysoped as part of a inactive group, pursuant to our policy to de-Sysop inactive users. Of course we greatly appreciate your prior contributions and hope you remain active, and perhaps even become a Sysop again. Others who have been de-Sysoped for inactivity have been restored as Sysops in the past.
I wonder if you would have the same very negative reaction towards a coach who demoted you to second string one day. I hope you don't hold conservatives to a different standard from coaches, liberals, public school teachers and others. Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems that some people get particularly angry at conservatives when they don't act in a certain way. Why is that? Take a break and we look forward to seeing you back.--Aschlafly 00:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
I agree with this much better answer. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:43, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Wow, you deleted my comment? Because you didn't agree with it? That's a handy way to go through life isn't it? But hey, it really just validated what I said - the desire to feel oppressed and draw strength from it. You just need to realize that ALL people with a point of view, will feel the same way. Conservatives are not uniquely persecuted. --Colest 12:14, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, please, "subhuman" is rather over the top. No one ever made any statements, that I am aware of, that you, and/or persons advocating the ideology you openly align with, is "subhuman." That is a rather "wikipedia type" charge. In the interests of fairness and civility, I would urge you to strike that comment. If any editor, anywhere on this website, ever made any thought or implication of such nature, that certainly would be swiftly dealt with. You making that charge here does nothing to further your own credibility.
I urge you to strike that comment, and it may even warrant an apology to editors who have openly espoused a conservative viewpoint. Thank you. Rob Smith 13:34, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Andy, I would hesitate to call it deceit but Hoji made circa 45 edits in September and 3 in October and was de-sysoped for being inactive, while ChrisS has only made one talk edit since May, DavidR has made no edits since the end of August and WillN only 2 edits since July yet all three remain sysops. Unless the same rule is applied to them as to Hoji I can only conclude that your stated reason is spurious. Gerrard 16:14, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
Hoji starts out his above post which is largely a tirade by stating that I am a "extreme" editor. He offers no proof whatsoever of his assertion that I am an extreme editor. Perhaps a sizable part of Hoji's tirade above is due to the homosexuality article which cites a plentitude of respected medical journals and also cites eminent pathologists which Hoji is unable to refute. I would also remind Hoji that according to the Pew Forum in 2003 55% of Americans believed it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior.[3] I am also guessing that Hoji finds creationism/creation science to be an extreme view but given that 56% of Americans view creationism as being definitely or probably true and given the fossil record, I think Hojis complaint of extremism is an overblown complaint.[4]Conservative 17:44, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

The favor of your permission is requested

Hello, Andy. I'm wishing to contribute the contents of the article on Wikipedia which I have edited extensively, but have been advised that this requires your permission. The name of the new article is "Unity." If there is any supplementary information that you need, please advise. Kind regards, --II 15:25, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Merely editing something, even extensively, on Wikipedia does not mean you can copy it under its complex, burdensome rules. Unless the work is your original creation, you need to obtain permission from Wikipedia to copy it without the burdens of the GFDL before you can post it here. That is a threshold requirement without yet considering whether the entry meets our other simple rules. In Christ.--Aschlafly 15:58, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
That's fine. I'll come back and help re-draft an article when time permits. All the Best, --II 16:14, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Categories

Mr. Schlafly, could you categorize this article in [[Category:Wikipedia]]? Also, should the main page be placed in a category? Other than these two protected pages, I've just about emptied the Uncategorized Pages list. Thanks. Greg 16:33, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

  • Greg, that noted Wikipedian, Ed Poor, has instructed previously, that not all articles can or should be categorized. Forget the Main Page, and the list of Liberal Wikipedians would be in the category "Liberals". Azirphale and I have been doing the categories, and I had no idea you were interested in helping out. We are/were in the process of changing out many categories, so I am sorry you have gone off doing this without posting to his pages on the matter, or my sandbox page where there is extensive discussion about this. Please check there. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:11, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Greg, your work is fantastic. I'll make the change as you suggest. I think the Main page should be the only deliberately uncategorized page. In Christ,--Aschlafly 17:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your feedback. I have another question, regarding this edit. The previous article was indeed copied verbatum as far as I could tell, should I block the user who added it? Or is there a way to tell whether or not the material is free to be reused here? Greg 18:42, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Copying is highly suspicious, and only allowed if (a) it is from a federal government site (and hence we paid for it) or (b) the person wrote the original version also (as in the case of people copying their own work from other wikis). I suggest asking the contributor for an explanation, and if he cannot explain his copying then block him. Thanks. In Christ.--Aschlafly 18:52, 2 November 2007 (EDT)
Okay, thanks. I didn't know the rule on copying, so I thought I'd check. Greg 19:01, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Dead ends

I have now emptied the list of dead end pages, except for protected pages. Greg 21:12, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

BRAVOOOOOOOOO!!!!! THAT'S PHENOMENAL!!!! I'LL CLEAN UP THE REMAINDER NOW!!! Godspeed to you!!!!--Aschlafly 21:13, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Is this encyclopedia limited to conservative christians only?

Dear Mr. Aschalafly,

This is in response to one of the messages by your Sysop TK. TK announced that atheists are not welcome at this site and is known to block users who are atheists, just for their belief or lack to it. Could you please clarify whether this is the official position of your encyclopedia.

thank you,

--JBuscombe 08:28, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Sysop TK blocked several users (and probably a single user at that) who kept coming back in repeatedly asking about a particular banned user. What TK said and done was meant for those individuals, and not users who put forth good edits on this site and happen to be atheists. Karajou 08:36, 4 November 2007 (EST

If you check Mr. TK's log, it specifically says "atheists are unwelcome at CP". That raises the question about other religious denominations and also non conservative Christians. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=TK http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATK&diff=327663&oldid=327658 --JBuscombe 08:44, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Then you would have to ask TK specifically. Karajou 08:45, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you Karajou for your responses, I was actually after the official conservapedia response - not TK's.--JBuscombe 08:47, 4 November 2007 (EST)

You may find the official thinking of CP in the Useful links that you already have in your talk page. Anything else is the personal thinking of users or sysops. As Karajou told you you are welcome to work here with valuably contributions. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:54, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Of course atheists, like everyone else, are welcome here - if they comply with our simple, fair rules. Comments in block logs do not reflect any Conservapedia policy. I think User:TK attempted to correct his mistaken comment, but that may not be possible with the software.--Aschlafly 09:42, 4 November 2007 (EST)
  • Since the user was looking at the log, they could not have missed this entry, being it is on top of the one he pointed out: 20:07, 3 November 2007 TK (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked JerseyGirl (contribs) (Sorry, I apologize for my stupid remark.) --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 12:29, 4 November 2007 (EST)

wanted pages problem

I would create an article for CP:AID (it is at the top of the most wanted pages list), but I don't know what it is! Perhaps you are more clued in? Styxz 19:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure what it is either! One guide is to click on what links there. I'd guess it is meant to be an aid to contributors, like a "FAQ". Feel free to start with some obvious entries. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:50, 4 November 2007 (EST)
It also could be Article Improvement Drive, which is what WP:AID (on Wikipedia) is. As a general reference, I try to look at whats linking to the page to detail the relevant article to place Geo.Complain! 00:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Heil Hitler

Someone recently created an account with the above username.

Please fix.

Many Thanks Dewey 20:27, 5 November 2007 (EST)

New Users

Andy, you might like to check out the activity of some new users. Dodgy names and illegal edits. BrianCo 20:28, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Most Wanted Pages

Quote: There are about 217 most wanted pages (5 or more links). Please help us reduce this list by inserting entries into each page.

It's down to 179 pages now! I see you are making new pages, I worked on some of them today too! :) Taj 00:46, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Personal tools