User talk:Fox/Archive6

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 Front Page 2 Cute 3 Lol 4 Note 5 Masterpiece nominations 6 Contest 7 Jerry Lewis 8 Gun edit 9 Good to see you again! 10 Java7837 11 Obama 12 A gift... 13 Treatment of prisoners 14 Scotch Bonnet 15 Thanks 16 Hey Fox! 17 Out on a limb 18 Thank you 19 Busy night 20 Anon IP user 21 Thank you 22 Re:your page 23 The Obama talk page is too crowded 24 Page 25 McCain 26 Your revert 27 PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!! 28 Please 29 Restored rights 30 Threats 31 Great blocks! 32 Thanks for the welcome 33 re: the new Einstein letter 34 No personal remarks 35 Face fault 36 A response 37 Question from Andy's talk page 38 UU

Front Page

A lovely front page, Fox, and not just the photos. A risk of sounding mawkish, thanks for sharing with us! [meant genuinely]. I've a feeling I mightn't be around too much longer, so - I've enjoyed reading your stuff and - not adieu, but au revoir. Bradlaugh 18:04, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks, appreciated. Hey, I hope you decide to stay; you've put a lot of effort in. Thanks again, for that also :) Fox (talk|contribs) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (EST) edit: Ah, I see. *ponders*

I also hope you will stick around. I've been learning a lot from your China articles. I hope you will keep up the good work! Learn together 18:07, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Hi, I'm so happy to see you back at Conservapedia! :) I love the photos of your kids on your talk page, and what a sweet story about you and your daughter chasing butterflies. Taj 20:39, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Hi Taj! Thanks, but now you've made me feel a bit fake because that's from a schmaltzy old song that my daughter sings with me :D Fox (talk|contribs) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, lol. :p Well the photos of the kids are still so cute! :) Taj 20:58, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Cute

Your kids are SOOOOOO cute!!!!! :P --~BCS^Talk2ME 09:33, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks Bethany :) They're less cute when all of them get together in the same room and decide to start a squabble :D Fox (talk|contribs) 09:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)

No really? They look sooo innocent!!!! :P I know what you mean. --~BCS^Talk2ME 09:47, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Lol

Wow Fox, great work - you're really doing well for your team.

But ... I think you're working too hard. Look, I'm going to just block you for the remainder of the contest, and you can thank me later ... sounds good? (that's rhetorical - of course it sounds good) ;D --IDuan 22:51, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, its almost 4am here, I was just going anyway :D Fox (talk|contribs) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry Fox - you can't talk your way out of this - you're just a CP addict- if I don't stop you from editing now - it'll only get worse. :D Again, great job, and I'll see you tomorrow--IDuan 22:56, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Fantastic work Fox. Does this pic describe you? Image:Duty Calls.png --Crocoite 06:22, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Haha :D My wife would say yes, but I would deny any similarity ;) Oh, I only got around to checking my email this morning, so I wasn't ignoring your mail, I just hadn't read it yet :/ I have two huge articles that I want to try and finish up today, Messianic Judaism and Holy Days, so will be around most of the day. Fox (talk|contribs) 06:28, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Note

Hey fox, just to make sure - you aren't counting Passover as a masterpiece (yet) are you? Because the masterpieces aren't decided on until after the contest, when the judges award any article they think deserves it (of each player's best article)--IDuan 16:32, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Similarly, I hope you're not counting Fair use images as Public domain... :P Fox (talk|contribs) 16:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

ahh, good eye- I wasn't even aware that rule existed! Although, if its ok with you, I'll just remove that rule - just because ... well, everyone's doing it (I just quickly checked both Joaquin's and Crocoite's page, and both had a few fair uses counted. Does that sound good?--IDuan 17:00, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Hehe, then PD should score double *winks* Fox (talk|contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (EST)

YOU HAVE ENOUGH POINTS!!! Lol, but ok, PD should score double as long as users who have usernames that start with F have their entire score halved. ;D--IDuan 17:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Masterpiece nominations

Since you are the team captain, I just wanted to let you know that my best article for masterpiece is Deconstruction. ~ Sharon^Talk 06:25, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Contest

Fox, well done on your phenomenal score on the contest. You have really "raised the bar" for everyone with your performance!--Aschlafly 07:22, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Ha, well, thanks Andy, but of course you should know that you are really the "fox" that we all chase in these contests - your examples from all of the previous competitions are what keep us editing long after we should be sound asleep at night :D But it was all good fun as usual, and you certainly had a great team to keep us on our toes! Fox (talk|contribs) 07:27, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Jerry Lewis

Please. Could you make the disambiguation in: Jerry Lewis and Jerry Lee Lewis?

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Done, JM :) Fox (talk|contribs) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Gun edit

I thought we were after insights into a subject. --Leda 18:33, 21 February 2008 (EST)

That wasn't insight. Fox (talk|contribs) 18:41, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I disagree. Guns are superlatively efficient killing devices. As an ex-forces man, you should know better than most the sense of power that gives one. I'd argue that has at least something to do with people's desire to preserve their right to bear such arms. --Leda 18:52, 21 February 2008 (EST)

You are assuming that everyone who handles a firearm is imbued with this "sense of power" you talk of, and feels that discharging a weapon is a projection on to the world of that sense of power. I would say that for most people it is a method of self-defense, a weapon of last resort used to save their own lives or that of innocents in mortal danger. Giving up their weapon is giving up their means of defense, not giving up a means of projecting power or "God-like" control over life and death. Most forces folk would tell you the same - their personal weapon is simply an efficient "tool of the trade". People who get stoked over handling weapons in the forces either grow out of it or don't last the distance anyway. Fox (talk|contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Good to see you again!

Fox, great to see you again!--Aschlafly 21:18, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Hi Andy, I've had a household of sneezey nippers down with winter ailments, and all the usual crud that goes with it :(. But back again at the helm :) And spotting the trash that people are trying to sneak in while they think I'm not watching *winks* Fox (talk|contribs) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Java7837

Fox, I notice you blocked user:Java7837 and reverted several of his edits. You may like to look at his edit history as there have been a lot more edits like that over the last few days. BrianCo 04:17, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Obama

Fox, are you the person to talk to concerning adding formation to the Obama article? I would like to include information about his foreign policy experience. --Jimmy 20:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)

A gift...

Heh, thnx :) Fox (talk|contribs) 11:24, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Treatment of prisoners

Do you know whether North Vietnam was a signatory of the Geneva Convention? I'm planning on expanding prisoner abuse and related articles. My motivation is to lay bare the difference between democratic countries and totalitarian countries treatment of prisoners. I daresay the record will show that America and it's friends aren't lily white, but that they are lightyears ahead of the communists and the fascists. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

I agree Ed, and I see where you were coming from, by the way, with the POW article - my talk page comment isn't criticism. North Vietnam was a signatory to the Convention, but there was never a declaration of war by any of the countries involved; at best, the Republic had declared a "State of Emergency". North Vietnam also stated that while it would treat downed airmen "humanely" it would not afford them POW status, and would consider their actions criminalk ("pirates" in fact is the phrase they used) because they had carried out "unprovoked attacks" on North Vietnam.

The nature of the conflict meant that North Vietnam was not bound to abide by the Convention, as without declarations of war it did not constitute an armed international conflict as defined by Article 2, Geneva Prisoner of War Conventions, or a conflict as defined by Article 3. International opinion actually backed North Vietnam over this issue! Although the USA eventually decided that it did fall within the categories of the Convention, and informed the International Committee of the Red Cross that it would abide by the Convention, the North Vietnamese refused to allow the ICRC any access to the POWs it held.

In 1973 the US concluded that "the Geneva Convention is only as effective as the competing belligerents alow. No recommendations are suggested as the problem lies with the belligerents and not with the Geneva Convention." See also [1] Fox (talk|contribs) 11:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Scotch Bonnet

We live and learn! :-) Koba 07:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Don't we just! Fox (talk|contribs) 07:19, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks

Thanks for the introduction. Maybe we could collaborate on certain articles? I also like your userpage; I've never encountered a Messianic Jew :-) AboodNazaar 13:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Hi :) I'm sure there are plenty of articles in need of collaboration over. Fox (talk|contribs) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Hey Fox!

Thanks mate. My days of active opposition at CP are over (I was wrong - there are far worse things to go against than were dreamt of in my philosophy ;) ), and I hope to return to writing some less controversial articles. If I recall correctly, I left with a metric ton of articles on algorithms left to do. --wikinterpreter ^woo!

Ello. Good to see you back :) Fox (talk|contribs) 15:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Out on a limb

(User:Palmd001)OK, I appreciate that some might think I'm putting my neck on the chopping block with this. BUT hear me out - the recent spate of unblocks and reblocks brought a lot of users to my attention. I like to look with a fine tooth comb through edit histories. This user would seem to have been blocked by a now-disgraced former sysop for - as CPAdmin1 described it - "ideological reasons". Who then used his - at the time considerable - powers to repeatedly re-apply the block despite the efforts of several other senior sysops to unblock. There was no vandalism, no obscenities, just disagreement. We are - I hope - all adult enough here to accept dissent. My take is that so long as you don't attempt to "corrupt" an article, you are free to edit here. Yes, defining corruption is difficult, I admit, but that's the nature of the beast when we all stand in slightly different positions with regard to the subject matter. This user may have no desire to rejoin CP. This user may return and immediately incur a subsequent block. But I think that "time" has definitely been served, and he has "served" more time than others who have committed far worse trangressions. The case of the disgraced and treacherous former sysop should serve to illustrate that, if nothing else: within weeks of fouling his own doorstep at CP he was being allowed back indoors.

Anyway, I'm unblocking. It is up to (if it's ok, i'd like to try to maintain at least a shred of anonymity, thanks) whether he rejoins, and whether he rejoins in the spirit in which this unblock has been made. I hope that everyone else here will concur. I'm just a man like the rest of you, who wrestles with his conscience, his morals and ethics and his desire to do the "right thing". Fox (talk|contribs) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Toda raba...very kind of you.PalMD^talk 20:53, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Thank you

For recognizing the value of civil debate and free discourse. However, the IP addresses of my compatriots and I are still blocked (I'm using my iPhone). I wonder if you'd oblige us by unblocking the IPs noted at the other place (WIGO talk). Yours iPhone-ily,-αmεσ (advocate) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Fox, thank you again. Very kind of you. I hope not to disappoint; while I will use the right to disagree with a couple of your peers, I'll do so respectfully. I wonder, though, could you unlock my user page, and unblock my school? I'd greatly appreciate either, but the first more than the second.-αmεσ (advocate) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Busy night

Did somebody lose the keys to the asylum? The loonies seem to be on the loose. Philip J. Rayment 10:04, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Heh, mad ten minutes - that time of day when they're crawling out of bed and switching on their pc's. Quite a few were all the same person though. Fox (talk|contribs) 10:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Anon IP user

Can you hold off for 5 minutes, I really need to grab a cup of joe? Fox (talk|contribs) 10:20, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Meh, I got it now anyway. Fox (talk|contribs) 10:31, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for taking my side on two issues today, much appreciated DLerner 15:24, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Re:your page

:(. Join the club ... --wikinterpreter ^woo!

The Obama talk page is too crowded

I figured I'd ask you here instead of the Obama talk page. What is the problem with my edits? The statement in the opening paragraph is almost racist sounding to me. And the second edit was just a grammatical edit- the fact that he went to a Muslim school had already been stated. I didn't want to start a revert war, so I'm just asking. VonShroom 18:45, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It was reverted because if I hadn't reverted it, someone else would have. And they may have blocked you for it too. I was making the process as painless as possible. Fox (talk|contribs) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I guess I do appriciate that, actually. You're probably right, someone may have blocked me for that. Do you think its worth discussing the whole "affirmative action" thing on the talk page, or will I be wasting my time? VonShroom 21:23, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Page

Fox, What on earth did you do to your userpage?????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was soooooooooooo good!! WHAT DID YOU DO????????? ~BCS^Talk2ME 18:51, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey Bethany. I'm a little upset and disappointed at some people's attitudes here recently, so I'm just pulling into my shell while I figure out what's going on/what I'm going to do :( Fox (talk|contribs) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi Fox, you know that I'm one of your biggest fans, so I hope that whatever is going on gets worked out to your satisfaction so that you are not stressed and can continue your wonderful contributions to the site. - Taj 20:38, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain

I don't question that McCain is qualified, because I think he is. What I do question is the assertion of his being the most qualified AS A FACT. There are plenty of people who would say that Ron Paul or Rudy Giuliani are the most qualified. For that matter, I know people who think Hillary Clinton is the most qualified, but that sure as hell isn't fact either.

I think that Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century, and could make a good case, but that doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedic entry. Even if it did, what if someone else produced an even better argument that Teddy Roosevelt was the best? The article is already very favorable to him overall so I don't see why it is imperative to his supporters that he be factually declared the most qualified candidate. Billdozer

Prove that the others are more qualified and add that. If you can't then I'm happy with it as it is. Fox (talk|contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Your revert

Why did you revert my edit to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia? The quoted paragraph is obviously wrong (anyone can visit the Wikipedia article for Al-Qeada, for example, which says outright that Al-Qeada is a terrorist group) so including false information, even if attributing it to someone else, is purposely lying to people. Is that the standard we set at conservapedia? Deweyman 21:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Read my comment at Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. The quoted paragraph isn't wrong, I looked at one of the examples, Hamas, and it did describe them as a "militant organization", with the rider that the US State Dept described them as terrorists, etc, just as the linked ref claimed. Don't come here calling me a liar, when you couldn't even be bothered to read my explanation at the talk page. FYI, Mr Knowitall, I also logged into WP and added the description "terrorist" to the Hamas article, which was reverted 5 minutes later. So go drink a nice cup of get out of my face. Thanks. Fox (talk|contribs) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Let me just say that I appreciate your response. It really embodies the spirit of Conservapedia. Otherwise, I'm sorry for not seeing your response on the talk page. Note also that I was not calling you a liar; I said we are lying to people by keeping this quote up. I apologize for any confusion. I've responded on the talk page. Deweyman 23:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

PLEASE DON'T LEAVE!!!

Fox, your contributions are greatly appreciated on this site. I regret that you are considering leaving Conservapedia. I greatly valued your opinions on this site and contributions to this site. I would like to ask you back to give this decision a little more consideration. I think that this is a hasty decision and should be reconsidered. I hope you will reconsider. Thanks, ~BCS^Talk2ME 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

~ P.S. If you do permanently leave this site, I wish you the greatest of luck in the rest of your life. I will miss you! ~Beth

I don't think that his decision was hasty. Philip J. Rayment 05:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Please

Fox, please read this. The last thing Conservapedia needs is for you to leave or get blocked. Please don't leave. Bohdan 14:13, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Restored rights

Fox, I just restored your edit, upload and blocking rights. Welcome back!--Aschlafly 12:12, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Threats

But please don't abuse your privileges. This wasn't funny. Was it a deliberate dig at homeschooling, or what?

Anyone but a longtime established user I would simply block without a warning, but I'm giving you a break. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:38, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Don't be absurd. As most long-term users here know, I am a homeschool educator - see the images illustrating the homeschool article for one of my "pupils". And it is a longstanding joke amongst homeschoolers to "play to the gallery" and mock ourselves. So stop coming here just to threaten me. KThnx. Fox (talk|contribs) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Great blocks!

Well done!--Aschlafly 12:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome

Shouldn't you be busy wandalizing Metapedia, though? ;) FRLeavis 17:01, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't wandalize - I improve :) Fox (talk|contribs) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Tomayto, tomahto... Get with the program, Foxy. --FRLeavis 17:07, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

I couldn't get Tor to work, maybe I will look later :/ Fox (talk|contribs) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Proxy.org's always done me fine. You just need a bit of patience to find a quick one. ;) --FRLeavis 17:19, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Hm. I just switched privoxy and tor on and it has decided it wants to work after all. Although Firefox now thinks I'm French. Fox (talk|contribs) 17:31, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

As your attorney, I advise you to sally forth. --FRLeavis 17:42, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

re: the new Einstein letter

Hi Fox,

Regarding your recent revert, the quote you include in the diff doesn't, in the context of the article, impugn the legitimacy of the letter. The author of the article is, I feel pretty clearly, indicating the rare nature of the letter. Earlier, the article explains how the letter was public for a year in the 50s before going into private hands.

I know better than to revert a sysop, especially to unrevert THEIR revert, but would you please revisit this subject? Regards, Aziraphale 15:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I've reverted my revert, but tbh I don't think that quote will have legs. Fox (talk|contribs) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

This may sound asinine, for which I apologize in advance, but while I agree with your prediction I'd rather see the quote pulled for openly-declared ideological reasons than for a faulty point of fact. It's kind of like when one party submits legislation that they know will get voted down by the opposition. At least they got them to say it... Anyway, thanks. Aziraphale 16:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

No personal remarks

I warned you before, but you sloughed it off ...

obvious garbage that Joaquin has added

That kind of remark can drive away a valuable contributor. I expect to see an apology as your first edit upon your return - not an excuse or a justification. Don't make me choose between you and him, because you know whom I would choose to keep around here.

If you disagree with an edit, there are proper ways to bring it up. Use them, or keep your peace. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:03, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Stop carrying out a personal vendetta against me. The edit is the subject, not the person. And proper ways about discussing it have been carried out. Fox (talk|contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Face fault

"ripped from wikipedia"....What? I didn't ripped from them. I even put source under the notes section. I ripped most from Zageek notes [2] and I added little from mine! Can I added it back?--TagoPagdaluhong 22:56, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh wait, the link is dead......But point is I didn't coped or ripped from Wikipedia. So with your permission, can I adding back?--TagoPagdaluhong 23:19, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Nevermind, I just added it back, no offense okay. I just check it from Wikipedia and it does look alike. I just change the name, okay?--TagoPagdaluhong 00:44, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

A response

Actually, several of my friends are good christians, my favorite 2 teachers are Christian, but they all have open minds, and are open to arguement. Just fopping off someone's queries does not constituite, in my mind, 'a good being'. IDontBelieveInGod 05:40, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Question from Andy's talk page

Excuse me? Where, pray tell, have I been "propping up anti-semitic organizations/opinions?" Please prove your accusation or retract and apologize. Jinxmchue 18:08, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't act dumb. Your anti-semitic edits are public domain both here (AFA) and on wikipedia (ChristaianityMeansFreedom). Don't visit my talk page again, you make me feel dirty. Your deception, and obscenities, might be just a source of sniggers among the white supremacist set in Minnesota, but I don't like them. Much as I don't like you. Go away, Jason, and pray for forgiveness, as I will pray for yours. שועל (talk|contribs) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

What makes you say that the wikipedia user is Jinxmchue? HenryS 21:26, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Well 1)the user claims to be. [[3]] 2)The user was doing something that Jinxmchue claimed to do, "Saying 'goodbye' to Wikipedia" (comment on Aschlafly talk page deleted.) 3) Because Jinxmchue blocks someone who points this out [[4]] (I wonder if I'll get blocked for pointing out that pointing something factual out leads to a block? 4) Jinxmchue didn't act how one could reasonably expect someone falsely accused of being someone else would: if it were you wouldn't you reply with "Oh gosh, I can see what you were thinking. It appears that someone has been pretending to be me. Rest assured that it isn't and I would never say things like that"? I would.--YoungA 16:09, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

I think Henry's asking what makes Fox think ChristianityMeansFreedom was me. Jinxmchue 16:35, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah! That might be a little different! ChristianityMeansFreedom's edits were disturbing. To be honest I think the name was the least disturbing aspect "Christianity is great!" is not the same as "Stuff that isn't Christianity sucks" (to make the link requires a logical error of denying the antecedent).--YoungA 16:48, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I've half a mind to go over to WP and ask someone to do an IP check on ChristianityMeansFreedom just to prove a point. Jinxmchue 16:55, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

UU

You've worked on the Unitarian pages, and I propose to merge them all to Unitarian. There are currently four, and I don't think there's enough information on them to warrant that. I wanted to ask your opinion as, again, you are active on them (some haven't been updated in quite a while). Corry 23:07, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I believe that Unitarianism and Unitarian Universalism should be on separate pages - with a disambig link directing to each other. שועל (talk|contribs) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Which I agree with if the pages are cohesive in that they mention one another. We can probably both agree that we don't need separate pages for Unitarian and Unitarians. I know that talking is less preferred than editing here, but I thought that some discussion was in order before I redirect three pages. That being said, I doubt I can fix anything as slow as this site is running. This is my third or fourth attempt to post this on your talk page before my browser times out. Corry 08:20, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, its tricky at the moment and I'm switching between IE and Firefox constantly. Taj has found netscape's Navigator useful, by all accounts. I don't know what's going on, but I do wonder about the implications of having at least two amateur bots running wild on the site... Back to the issue. The pages at the moment can be chopped up and redistributed to the two main articles that need to be kept, and we can build from there. שועל (talk|contribs) 08:33, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Concur. I imagine the UU pages are getting more hits these days, for unfortunate reasons. Corry 09:29, 30 July 2008 (EDT)