User talk:Foxtrot

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive: 01

Contents

Literature

Thank you! We have to be working on it in order to reach the level that we have got now in Architecture and Sculpture.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:02, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks!

Thanks for all your help in getting me unblocked. If there's anything I can do for you, just let me know. NeilEG 15:45, 28 November 2008 (EST)

No problem! I hope you enjoy your time at CP and sorry again for the misunderstanding. -Foxtrot 15:49, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Bumblebee

Can I assume a certain bumblebee is about to be swatted?AlanE

Huh? I thought I blocked bumblebee earlier today! -Foxtrot 19:08, 28 November 2008 (EST)
You may have. I deleted his work at Finland, checked for other contributions, saw you had been at Duck after him, and wrote immediately to you. Didn't bother to check whether he was already gone. AlanE 19:56, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Yeah, I had already blocked him right then. Thanks for keeping an eye out, or should I say, keeping an ear open for the buzzing. -Foxtrot 20:01, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Blocking for username

You have blocked users with the following comment: "Recreate your account with your real first name and last initial." If you don't want to be a hypocrite, you should either follow your own advice, and "Recreate your account with your real first name and last initial", or else stop blocking people for it. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:47, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Well, CPAdmin1, if that's your real first name and last initial, I am not blocking people for this rule indiscriminately. I am following the general guidelines to block users with suspicious names and "Hooft" sounds suspicious. There are plenty of other users like me (e.g. Sideways, CSGuy) whose name is not a first name and last initial, but our names are not suspect. It's also worth noting that me and the others I've mentioned have had our accounts since before this policy became fully enforced. -Foxtrot 20:51, 28 November 2008 (EST)
I am simply pointing out that if we are going to enforce such policy, then you will have to change your name, and if not, then you should not be blocking people for it. I don't see anything particularly suspicious about "Hooft". --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 21:13, 28 November 2008 (EST)
That's an example of an unjustified demand for consistency, like insisting that boys and girls take the same exam. We don't worship a mindless consistency. The entire criminal justice system relies on what is known as "prosecutorial discretion," which means enforcing only some laws and some circumstances, and sentences are often inconsistent. See the parable about the vineyard owner and the workers who started at different times.--Aschlafly 21:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)

I'd like to know more about such things as prosecutorial discretion and police discretion. --Ed Poor Talk 15:53, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Writers Category

The category is cleaned out and moved to Authors, as per the merge notice you posted. Hovever, the Phyllis Schlafly page is locked, and I can't access it to change the category. Thanks! WesleySHello! 10:20, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I had wanted to change that page's category too, but I don't have those rights (you need to be an admin to change locked pages, I just have edit,block and upload rights). Sorry! :-) -Foxtrot 14:59, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Parody

This morning I linked the two Parody articles (Ed immediately deleted the "literature" one but that is bye the bye.) That they were still unlinked a month after I had complained about it, sort of proves my point, don't you think? Cheers... AlanE 15:51, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but the linked article was so bad it seemed like self-parody. --Ed Poor Talk 15:52, 30 November 2008 (EST)
No problems...it looked iffy to me, but who was I to say. I'm glad its gone. This is about something else. AlanE 16:03, 30 November 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I should have linked them after the incident. Apologies again! -Foxtrot 16:10, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Block of AlanS

I know that 90/10 is just a guideline - so you may use it though his list of contributions didn't meet the criteria. But in AlanS's case, one gets the impression that this is just a mock reason to silence a editor who carefully showed that you, Foxtrot, were factually incorrect. --BRichtigen 09:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen, this kind of unsupported allegation doesn't help Conservapedia at all. Please read my comment on the Axiom of Doom section. The mmatter of AlanS is now closed. Our Sysops are trustworthy people, and their decisions should be respected. Bugler 09:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Foxtrot isn't a sysop. Besides. If it were true that sysops were infallable and never ever made one single mistake, then the abuse page shouldn't exist, should it? But it does. And wasn't it you who closed the matter? Who exactly gave you the authority to unilaterally close abuse cases? HelpJazz 18:30, 1 December 2008 (EST)
I am not a sysop, but I'll quickly note that you are even less of a sysop than either of us. To argue that "even sysops occasionally make mistakes, so this is a mistake too" is faulty logic, my friend. The matter had indeed been resolved on the relevant talk pages and on the abuse page. It is only an undisciplined, arrogant user who pursues this matter ceaselessly, and he has been using the Desk/Abuse page to lodge attacks in three separate threads (at least). He doesn't seem to me like a user who knows his place and has respect for the authority figures here. -Foxtrot 04:59, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I am willing to hear reasons why we should invite Alan back to the project. What sort of work do you suppose he would be willing to do? --Ed Poor Talk 18:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)

AlanS's contributions to Axiom of Choice were excellent, clearing the problems the late AndyJM had highlighted (AndyJM's block is a enigma to me, too.) As for a writing plan, AndyJM had asked on Foxtrot's talk page:
Hi Foxtrot. I see from your user page and the edit history of many of the math articles that you are heavily involved in the creation of math articles here on Conservapedia. Do you know if there is any group within Conservapedia that deals with the math articles, organizing, planning etc? If not I think that it would be a great idea to set one up. I see that there are many gaps in elementary subjects while far more advanced topics are included. It would be be great to create a set of articles that would build as a self contained introduction to the most important areas. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (or those of any interested eavesdroppers). AndyJM 15:10, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Looks like a writing plan to me...
--BRichtigen 19:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Not good enough. We have had several waves of writers coming in and creating completely useless articles about esoteric aspects of math. I want articles which make math and science accessible to the average reader. This requires the production of elementary material written on the middle school level: 6th to 8th grade, in the U.S. Only then will the advanced article have any value. --Ed Poor Talk 19:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)
"I see that there are many gaps in elementary subjects while far more advanced topics are included. It would be be great to create a set of articles that would build as a self contained introduction to the most important areas." How is this not what you asked for? HelpJazz 20:01, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Please invite him to come back and create those articles, then. --Ed Poor Talk 20:05, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Ed, who are you talking about inviting back in the comment above? AlanS or AndyJM? HenryS 20:26, 1 December 2008 (EST)

An enigma??? Are you serious, BRichtigen? I've explained my block of AndyJM multiple times. Your inability to notice that means that you are either blind or intentionally ignorant, only wanting to stir up trouble. Furthermore, your fudging of the account of what happened is not appreciated. "For the record" is hardly an accurate description of your glib reduction to "AlanS was right, Foxtrot was wrong" here. Your eagerness to reduce everything to right and wrong, good/evil, etc. reveals only a desire to win the argument, rather than respect for a more experienced user's discretion. You have not ceased in bringing this topic up over and over, and in multiple locations -- this has spilled over from the AC talk page to my talk page, the Desk/Abuse page and perhaps even elsewhere. Such unyielding persistence belies your unwillingness to deal with the situation in its proper course. Instead you wail all around town, hoping someone oblivious to the events will believe this protracted sob story. These attempts at character assassination and discord among the senior staff are not going to work and if you continue, you will have something genuine to wail about. -Foxtrot 04:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)


  • Your eagerness to reduce everything to right and wrong, good/evil, etc. reveals only a desire to win the argument, rather than respect for a more experienced user's discretion. It is not about good or evil. We are talking about mathematics, and so we can talk about right or wrong, independently from including the AC in the axioms you accept or not. The statement
is right. The statement
  • "The Axiom of Choice has many equivalent statements, such as the existence of cardinal numbers, the existence of a basis for every vector space, and the existence of subsets of the real line which do not have a well-defined Lebesgue measure."
is wrong. Period.
  • You have not ceased in bringing this topic up over and over, and in multiple locations -- this has spilled over from the AC talk page to my talk page, the Desk/Abuse page and perhaps even elsewhere. Yes, so I did: I try to talk about the subject on the corresponding talk-page, I try to talk about blocks on the talk-page of the editor who performed the block. When Ed Poor deleted Axiom of choice, I brought it to the attention of ASchlafly. When you erased the discussion on your talk page - as being 'senseless talk', I went to Desk/Abuse. BTW, you brought the topic to Ed Poor's talk page...
  • Such unyielding persistence belies your unwillingness to deal with the situation in its proper course. What's the proper course? Waiting for you that you realize all by yourself that you made an error? Sorry, that doesn't sound efficient...
  • character assassination? Pointing out flaws in your mathematical reasoning has nothing to do with character: I know many upright men who don't no anything about math... Threats like you will have something genuine to wail about say something about character - at least in my opinion.

--BRichtigen 07:28, 5 December 2008 (EST)

You've once again brought the issue out of focus. The issue was about the removal of information from pages by a banned user. That information belonged in the articles, and it goes beyond the simple point that you have turned into the pinnacle of argument. The issue had been straightened out, yet you insisted on bringing it up again and again. The proper course *was* occurring, but you decided to derail it by going to the Abuse page and other editors pages. If you didn't realize, it's because of your ceaseless arguing that the Axiom of Choice page got deleted in the first place, so it's hardly a consolation that you asked for its restoration (in any case, I would assured its restoration last night when I returned). I have brought it up on Ed's webpage since he deleted the page for administrative reasons and they needed to be addressed. The other natural place would have been the Abuse page, but as you can see by the archiving, the administration considers this matter closed. So for once in your life, respect the authorities. -Foxtrot 14:03, 5 December 2008 (EST)
The issue is Is it right to remove incorrect statements from an article. The discussion is still on the abuse page, so it isn't closed by the administration. I elaborate my arguments - once more - on Philip J. Rayment's talk page, where you asked him for clarification. It's because of my ceaseless arguing, AndyJM's initial edits and AlanS's contributions that factual incorrect statements were excluded from the article on the Axiom of Choice. Of course, an empty article is always valid --BRichtigen 16:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)
For the record, the discussion had been removed from the abuse page when I was writing the above comment. It has since been re-placed on the page out of the archives. And I absolutely do not want an empty article on the subject -- if I did, why would I be objecting to the removal of content? -Foxtrot 22:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Block of User:Hwuya

I was blocked last week, for "Inserting liberal bias" however I don't understand what you mean. From my position I wasn't inserting any bias. Please tell me what was biased. -User:Hwuya 17:14, 2 December 2008

If you don't realize the bias inherent in your two edits that were reverted before your block (one by Andy, one by me), then I think you should reread Conservapedia:Commandments again before making future edits. We hold a conservative point of view here and hold steadfast to the truth in defiance of attempts at liberal dilution. -Foxtrot 05:14, 5 December 2008 (EST)
You must understand, I didn't find any bias at all in the first edit, I wrote that it was only a few of the people Hollywood, this is undeniably true and therefore not biased. I simply believed it to be more Christian to give credit to the thousands of people in Hollywood who do not do such things like breaking the law or calling their daughters pigs The truth cannot be biased cannot it? It has no opinion. And for the second edit I believed it was in fact more fair as saying that those things that the actors complained about were "pet peeves" implies that they are inherently true when they are not, whereas a belief is not inherently true. This is exemplified by erroneous liberal beliefs. -Hwuya 03:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)
We seem to be referring to only one of the same edits, so I'll put in links to make it clear what I'm referring to:
The Hollywood values edit undermines the brunt of the article, and it misrepresents the case because the exemplars of Hollywood values are not just "a few" of the people in Hollywood. Those listed in the article are just the cases that have been reported and cause our attention. Often problems of abuse are far greater than what goes reported and having such an extensive list already points to the pervasiveness of Hollywood values.
The professor values edit adds extraneous information that only seems to justify the professors in their actions, which is liberal subversion of the conservative standpoint. -Foxtrot 16:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Thank you for clarification. Though, I apologize for professor values, I merely meant to glorify the constitution and the action of citizens exercising the rights it provides. -Hwuya 10:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Okay, but next time please take note of the overall effect it has on what is being said. -Foxtrot 22:57, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Happy New Year

JY23 21:09, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks! Same to you! -Foxtrot 21:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Please...

Get back to me ASAP, on that email, okay? --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't received an email from you since this morning. Can we talk about it here? None of those three points (especially the first two I posted), seemed to be particularly private. -Foxtrot 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Better check again. You need to do this. --₮K/Admin/Talk 20:09, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, I guess something about the wording made it end up in my spambox... strange. Anyway, I got it, but just to let you know, these things were more curiosities on my mind than anything else. In the time since I started, I and others have had minor discussions about other users with sysops without any problems. If it is policy, it didn't seem to be one that was so strictly enforced before. I'll keep it in mind now. Cheers. -Foxtrot 20:23, 10 January 2009 (EST)
There was never a rule that things need to be discussed off site. --Tim TalkFormerly CPAdmin1 21:09, 10 January 2009 (EST)
The risk of something important ending up in someone's spambox is in itself a reason to be less inclined to use email for lesser discussions. If it's posted on my talk page, I'll see that red box the very next time I try to edit and I'll get to it. If it's in my spambox, I may never know it arrived. -Foxtrot 21:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)
  • As Tim well knows, Mr. Schlafly has instructed Admins not to discuss these matters with editors, and not to discuss block decisions with people unrelated to the blocks. Your coming here, Tim, is indeed interference, and meddling in Admin matters. You did resign, right? And sorry, Foxtrot, if you are given privileges, as you have been, then you do need, as per the CP Guidelines, need to make yourself available like that. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:03, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Gotcha. -Foxtrot 22:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Nonsense?

Abstinence doe not provide 100% protection against HPV, as a virgin bride can always catch it from her husband. TheGuy 22:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

That's where the nonsense is: abstinence before marriage only applies to the period before marriage. Anything beyond that is chastity. And if both husband and wife abstain, then there they will not magically contract HPV on their wedding night. -Foxtrot 22:36, 10 January 2009 (EST)
The husband can catch it before marriage. The article at the moment implies that if the wife abstains before marriage there is absolutely no way that she can contract HPV. While I am not denying that abstinence is the most effective method of prevention, it is not 100% foolproof as currently claimed. TheGuy 22:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)
There are many easy ways for a woman to know if a potential husband also practices abstinence. Such a man would not be pressuring her into sex or have too much physical contact other than holding hands or an occasional kiss. If the woman's smart about her choices in husband as she would be in her choice about abstaining before marriage, then she's 100% protected against getting HPV. Your logic is based on the premise that there are some people who have sex before marriage and therefore everyone should have sex before marriage because you won't receive any of the benefits of abstinence. But this "global" argument fails to take into account the "local" nature of marriage -- it's a marriage just between two people. The dangers of HPV and other STDs can arise only from the sexual partners of those two people and if they both come from good homes and have made the wise life choices recommended by abstinence educators, then they will have no problem avoiding HPV. -Foxtrot 22:53, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Two problems with that argument...
1) Just because a man did not practice abstinence in the past does not mean he is not willing to wait now, and just because he is willing to wait now does not mean he is going to tell the truth. Is is also possible to engage in sexual conduct without remembering it (under the influence of alcohol)
2) It is entirely possible for a woman to eventually become aware that her future husband did not practice abstinence and then continue to marry him. After all he may have changed his ways, and as far as I am aware there is no current approved method of detecting whether a male has HPV
Unfortunately the current claim that abstinence is 100% effective is flawed. TheGuy 22:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Again, you're listing situations that would not occur with someone truly dedicated to their mission of abstinence. Letting yourself become sexually entangled under the influence of alcohol? Not going to happen if you are abstinent. Abstinence education teaches you to avoid situations that would leave you susceptible to acting against your best intentions, things like alcohol, skinny dipping, spin the bottle, etc. If you're already meandering down those paths, how do you expect your abstinence to be true and effective? Abstinence is not simply a bedroom imperative, but a guideline on how to live your whole life. -Foxtrot 23:11, 10 January 2009 (EST)
I was showing a situation where a female was abstinent and her husband wasn't and she did not know. Obviously in cases like these abstinence before marriage would not protect her 100% against HPV. The drunken encounter example was for the male, not the female. TheGuy 23:30, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Abstinence is not just for the female, it's for the male too. -Foxtrot 23:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Quaternions

Hi Foxtrot. I see from your user page that you are responsible for maintenance of the mathematics articles. Perhaps you should take a look at Quaternion. It is full of errors, many bordering on the ridiculous. Could you please clean up the article? As an Irish mathematician the subject is close to my heart so I'd like to see an accurate article on the subject. Thanks! AndyJM 10:24, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed, I am one of the self-appointed stewards of the math articles. While I appreciate your seeming good intentions in bringing the parody content at Quaternion to my attention (e.g. Allan Quartermain), I cannot help but notice your behavior in other posts, including this snarky remark directed at ASchlafly and in other posts to which I have already replied or will reply. You will have to be a lot less two-faced to succeed at this site. -Foxtrot 22:12, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I agree with you that my comment to Schlafly was snarky and uncalled for, and for this I apologize. We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here and I hope that we can rectify this. I guess that my comment was born from my frustration. I have considerable expertise in math as I have a PhD from a major US university and I have published a few papers in decent math journals (although unfortunately I am no Newton). All the edits that I have made to the math articles have been well meaning and I believe have improved the accuracy of articles. I appreciate the fact (seeing the Quaternion article) that Conservapedia is the target of parody and that the math articles are prime targets as it difficult for anyone without substantial expertise in the area to determine whether an edit is correct or parody. That said I feel that I have explicitly laid out many of my concerns about the articles in talk pages and you do not seem to have an interest in discussing my concerns. See for example my comments in the talk page for Elementary proof. I promise to avoid the snarky remarks in the future. Could you please take a small amount of time to read the comments that I leave on the talk pages and make an honest effort to understand my concerns? I am always open to debate and discussion, I'm not claiming that I should have the last word on any issue. I think that if we proceed like this we should be able to get over our bad start. If you are willing to assume good faith on my part then I believe that we can work together well. Dia dhuit a cairde. AndyJM 07:50, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Teenagers

Beg your pardon, Foxtrot, but MauriceB was persistently deleting my entry on Roger Mason in Great Achievements by Teenagers or altering it such a way as to render it meaningless. Why are you complaining about me rather than him? HSpalding 19:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I am a fair person and it does take two to edit war. If MauriceB hadn't already been blocked, I would have blocked him as well, for the same duration as you. Both of you neglected taking the issue to the talk page, where it could have been dealt with properly, as it now has been. -Foxtrot 19:53, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Gay Pride

Concerning our little "edit war" over the word "Oxymoron" to describe the term "Gay Pride". To make a phrase an oxymoron, one word must directly contradict the other (i.e. jumbo shrimp, or good grief, or living dead). Personal feelings regarding homosexuality aside, "gay" does not mean "shame" in any sense, which it would have to in order to make "gay pride" an oxymoron. I believe we can find a different, more appropriate word to describe the phrase, like "slang" --ShawnJ 20:09, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Well, "good grief" wouldn't be an oxymoron then either, since "grief" does not mean "bad" in any sense. However, most people agree that grief is a bad thing (thus "good grief" is considered an oxymoron). Wouldn't "gay pride" be considered an oxymoron for the same reason — because most people agree that homosexuality is sin, and therefore shameful? I think your choice of argument is undermining your own side's case, Shawn. --AbnerY 20:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Grief: keen mental suffering or distress over affliction or loss; sharp sorrow; painful regret. How is that not "bad"? Sinful is one thing, and is not synonymous with "shameful". In fact, the original sinner's original sin was pride. I maintain that we can find a better word than oxymoron, like "slang", "idiom", or "jargon". --ShawnJ 21:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Do you think that all pain is "bad"? The Bible says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Are you a spoiled child? :)

And maybe you should read Conservapedia's article on original sin. I do not think that word it means what you think it means. --AbnerY 21:36, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I really don't want to get into an argument over the definition of EVERY word. Just to clarify though, one of the many definitions of "bad" is "undesirable", which is exactly what pain is, which is why it's such an effective tool for teaching (if used properly, like all tools, but I digress). Also, I see you are confused over my use of the phrase "the original sin" vs. your use of "original sin", which is understandable. I was referring to "the original", as in the first one ever, committed by Satan. To reiterate, because we've gotten off track, my argument is that "gay" does not mean "shame", therefore "gay pride" is not an oxymoron.ShawnJ 12:23, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Thank you both for your apologies here. I did not mind the discussion. Abner, I think you did a fine job of arguing how expressions like "good grief" are oxymorons even though "grief" is not the direct opposite of "good". They simply have to be contradictory terms: "grief" is usually caused by bad events, so applying the adjective "good" seems to be causing a contradiction with one of the properties of "grief". Similarly, homosexuality is a sin, and therefore should be a source of shame. The contradiction is that instead of instilling shame, somehow it would instill pride. Note that in both cases the contradiction for the oxymoron lies in associated properties of the noun (bad events, shame of sin). Another example is "selfless thief" -- a thief steals for himself, so it would be seemingly contradictory that we would be selfless (not thinking about himself first). Shawn, I hope this clarifies the usage of oxymoron and why it was appropriate in this case. -Foxtrot 09:44, 17 February 2009 (EST)
Ok, that's the kind of explanation I was waiting for. I can now understand why you would use that word to describe that term. I still believe that we can find a more appropriate word, but until such time I'll accept "oxymoron" there. --ShawnJ 10:48, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Continuum

Hi Foxtrot. I have asked Roger Schlafly to mediate over the continuum article. Please see my comment on his talk page http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARSchlafly&diff=625014&oldid=618012

All the best. AndyJM 08:40, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, thanks. I'm curious to see what he has to say. Cheers. -Foxtrot 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia:Featured articles

Dear friend. You are invited to participate in: Conservapedia:Featured articles. --Joaquín Martínez 17:57, 1 March 2009 (EST)

With pleasure! Thank you for the invitation, Joaquín! -Foxtrot 17:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Extraterrestrial Life

I appreciate your interest in cleaning up the extraterrestrial life article, but please do not remove large chunks of information saying "this argument is better suited for article X" and then not place it in article X. It's better to have such expositions in the current article than not at all. Also, other information you were deleting outright was important as well. How can you have an article on extraterrestrial life and popular knowledge of it and wipe out all mention of Roswell? Please be more prudent in your edits. -Foxtrot 15:25, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Alright, Roswell is back. I don't know what the big deal is--the article only said that a movie was made about it. It didn't even give the name of the movie. If there was ever an extended discussion of Roswell in the article, someone else deleted it.
Please do not use "revert" to restore things, it wipes out all changes. Ga ohoyt 19:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Redirect

Hey, Could you make the redirect search CP redirect to Conservapedia, instead of the main page? I don't know how to access redirects to the main page. Thanks! AddisonDM 22:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Done, as well as a couple others. For future reference, whenever you hit a redirect page and don't want it to redirect, just place the redirect page's name into this URL in place of "NAME":
http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=NAME&redirect=no
For instance, http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=CP&redirect=no
Also, I looked at what other pages redirect to the Main Page in case there are others that should be switched to Conservapedia. I think I got all of them, but you may want to take a second look. (FYI, don't change any of the 'index' ones)
Redirects to Main Page
Hope that helps! -Foxtrot 06:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks! AddisonDM 22:36, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Liberal?

Hi - how did that work? I deleted the speedy article 'Liberal', yet we still have an article for 'Liberal'. How could we have 2 identically named articles - although I am sure I missed something. It happens... {^_^} --KotomiTnandeyanen? 07:00, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Unfortunately they weren't two identically named articles, just two articles that looked identical. Instead of certain characters in the name, the original person used alternate ascii characters that look nearly identical. This is a common technique in phishing scams, from what I've heard. I'm just glad those vandals didn't seem to have enough time to execute their plan, whatever it was... -Foxtrot 16:47, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

AParker3

This user was blocked. The edit reason line he added ("Karl Marx does not speak for all of Communism. Get a real source from some sort of historical or political piece about communism which specifically addresses Atheism") smacked of denial that Mark created communism, as well as flat-out arrogance. His proxy use didn't add to his honesty, either. Karajou 19:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I was posting the warning to his page as you were blocking. Then when I refreshed RecentChanges I saw he had already been dealt with, so I felt redundant. His editing pattern indicated he hadn't even bothered reading the articles before inserting his fact tags. If he saw a fact his liberal leanings wanted him to deny, he would put a fact tag or removed it, rather than reading on to see the explanation. Completely short-sighted and ignorant, denying obvious things like Karl Marx's ideas founding Communism. -Foxtrot 19:35, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
Communism is almost entirely based on the ideas of Karl Marx (along with Engels and Lenin). This is why opponents call Communist ideology "Marxism-Leninism". --Ed Poor Talk 11:22, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Two cats

Thanks. --Ed Poor Talk 06:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

No problem, seemed natural, unlike the actual act involved in the cat I added. -Foxtrot 09:33, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

DNC

I support your request to have the page reinstated. I had included the initial story on the DNC 2008 convention page.--Jpatt 16:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Jpatt. The Democrats may want their convention debacles forgotten (or make them seem more conventional, another liberal tactic), but it is not so easy when vigilant observers keep the truth in sight. -Foxtrot 16:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
What am I missing here? I don't see it was ever deleted. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:24, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
The standalone article Democrats and casual sex was the one that was deleted. -Foxtrot 16:31, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Unfortunately what is said about the Democrats in the article, also applies to Minneapolis and the Republican convention as well. I would say just let it be, Richard was correct in deleting it, although it would have been nice if he had pointed out to Foxtrot as to why. ;-) --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:39, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Can you point me to a source about the Republican activities? I honestly hadn't heard of any similar scandal, and I spent a few minutes looking before writing the statement that said no similar activity happened in the same noticeable degree at the RNC. Maybe I had the wrong Google search strings. -Foxtrot 16:44, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Sure. Most of it appears to be anecdotal, however the ABC News article apparently interviewed several "workers".

The Klaas Foundation, a national organization that helps to locate missing children, has found a number of ads for high profile escorts servicing the Denver and St. Paul areas explicitly for the conventions, according to Brad Dennis, the director for the foundation's national search center for missing and trafficked children. "The activity is unusually high," Dennis said. "They're coming in for the conventions--that's exactly what they put on their Web sites." [1]

You can check here,and this article from ABC News, says "experts" as saying the sex trade increases for both conventions.[Here is another], at least partially taken from the ABC article, it appears. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:26, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

New Guideline

Hey Foxtrot,

I hope your Thanksgiving was good. Please be aware of our Guidelines regarding blocking. Non-Administrators should not be blocking for reasons of policy, or subjective reasons such as user name, unless such name is blatantly obscene. Communications from blocked users should be passed on to one of the Admins as well.

Sincerely,

Geoff PlourdeComplain! 20:45, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Personal tools