User talk:Foxtrot/1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Foxtrot/1, 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, Foxtrot/1!

--Crocoite 18:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the welcome! I'm new to the whole business of "wikis" but I'm just happy to get the chance to be helpful!
Foxtrot 18:31, 14 January 2008 (EST)


"Britney Spears = Presbyterians"

*blinks* *boggles* *blinks again*

That is honestly one of the weirdest things I have ever seen. Amusing, disturbing and confusing. Thanks for sharing it! Jinxmchue 01:55, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

No problem! I once got a list of bizarre anagrams, which I've all but forgotten. That one, though... once you see it you can never forget it. Foxtrot 12:06, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

90/10 rule

I was reading your user page, and I think you have the 90/10 rule backwards. Its 90% talk and 10% edits, not the other way. =) FernoKlump 17:49, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I totally misread it. I thought you had to have at least 90% edits, which seemed way too high to support any sort of intelligent debate on articles, especially if you object to a change. Thanks for the heads up. Foxtrot 17:58, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
No problem. FernoKlump 18:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Attention to detail

Nice copy-edits here. Thanks. --Ed Poor Talk 15:02, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

No problem. Just scanning the Recent changes list for things that need a little touch-up. --Foxtrot 16:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Loma Prieta Earthquake

Hi, thanks for your mention that Loma Prieta Earthquake needed better formatting, (you commented on the Conservapedia:Featured articles page). I made some revisions, could you kindly take a look and see if it looks better now and if there are other changes you could suggest? Thanks! :) Taj 22:33, 14 July 2008 (EDT)


Moved to Vertigo (film, 1958); I think all film articles should be titled in this fashion to avoid confustion with books, science, etc. Any thoughts? Karajou 15:03, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, especially with all the remakes out there it's best to include the date of release in the title. Thanks for the quick move! Foxtrot 15:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


Congratulations - you've been promoted to night editing, blocking and uploading privileges. Well done!--Aschlafly 22:48, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

My socks have been thoroughly knocked off!!! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!! -Foxtrot 01:47, 20 July 2008 (EDT)


Begun at Talk:Barack_Obama#Did_Obama_think_the_atom_bomb_fell_on_Pearl_Harbor.3F DefenderofTrue 19:54, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Category: Japanese

Thank you so much for doing that! Good idea (why didn't I think of it? ^_^) - I think you have found everything, I will double check and add any others. I am glad you enjoyed the articles too - gives one a warm feeling. I will probably add some more on the language itself (as suggested by Ed Poor), but if you ever have any questions, please feel free to ask. --KotomiTUser formerly known as JessicaT 07:49, 14 August 2008 (EDT)


Foxtrot, kids coming here do not want to be confused when they take the SAT's. So don't mix up plane geometry with other stuff. The real line is not related to the definition of a line segment.

Please alert me after editing any math articles; preferably, ask me first (with as much courtesy as Jessica-san. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:55, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot, It is only fair that you have to get the permission from such an experienced sysop (even award winning) before you make changes to maths article. --DavidN 15:21, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Blocked one week, for ignoring instructions. I have taught SAT math prep classes, you know. Try to be cooperative here, and keep in mind the purpose of the project. --Ed Poor Talk 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
Ed, I have explained how the real line is intrinsically related to the definition of line segment at the talk page. There is no confusion of concepts, but I'm willing to discuss this further on the talk page to clarify my point.
As for alerting you to my math edits, wasn't that what I did here and here for none other than the line segment article? You had plenty of time to review and then when you do a month later you accuse me of sabotage. Since when does a saboteur ask for approval to lay the trap? My revert was to defend my reputation and to clarify--I accompanied it with an explanation on the talk page addressed specifically to you (both in edit summary as well as in the entry).
Your demand for alerts of my math edits is deserving of a new user; I am an established user with blocking, night editing and upload rights. I have made enough quality edits to this wiki, especially with regard to the math articles, to have proven myself as competent and knowledgeable. These edits are undoubtedly part of why Andy gave me blocking rights. A simple read through my math contributions testifies to that solidly.
Secondly, passing every math edit through you creates the sort of bottleneck that wikis were created to avoid. On days that I'm active, I usually make at least 30 edits and at least half are math-related. To wait for your approval would unnecessarily slow the development of the site.
Now, I'd be happy to discuss the line segment article on its talk page--we were communicating fairly well a month ago when the page was restarted. If you insist on keeping the real line stuff out of the article, then I will leave the article alone, but I request at least the civility to allow me defend my position without insinuations of sabotage. Regards. -Foxtrot 04:14, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Real line

Ed, sorry for the barrage but a lot comes up in a week. Since we're already on the subject of geometry articles, I noticed after being blocked that real line is a red link now. Looking at the deletion log reveals that you deleted it with the comment: unrelated to geometry and therefore confusing - was this created for that purpose? I'm pretty sure I created that page and if there were no changes since its creation, then the only content was:

The real line is the real numbers thought of as a line.

and the category tag. That's about as barebones a definition as you can get! The concept is very fundamental to mathematics: that the real numbers are not only interesting as a number system, but also as a geometric object. When you think of them arranged in order as a line, you are able to see their important geometric (and topological) properties, such as continuity, connectedness, density, least upper bounds and greatest lower bounds, compactness (of closed intervals), etc. This representation as a line comes up all the time -- any time you plot a function and draw the x-axis you're drawing the real line. Sources: MathWorld again, along with the section on "real line" on

If anything, the real line page needed a stub tag, but it should not have been deleted. -Foxtrot 04:18, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Block of User:DessipF?

I was wondering why you blocked my husband who goes by the name of DessipF. Actually, that is his real name (specifically his middle name that he prefers). Especially considering that yours clearly isn't conforming to the naming convention that's in the rules. RachealS 15:09, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

"RachealS", Then please explain to your husband that birth defects are not God's will. His other edits weren't much better, and we'll do fine without those kind of "contributions". Oh, and by the way, "Racheal" is usually spelled "Rachael". Godspeed.
Someone should tell Zambian sprinter Racheal Nachula, British ProLife Alliance politician Racheal Kingsley, and singer Racheal Huffman! --Jareddr 15:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Someone should tell that spelling offensive words backwards are not acceptable usernames. Will they next time be Larebil and Tsiehta? SilvioB 15:23, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Don't be an User:toidi. =^_^= (Ed Poor Talk 09:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT))

WikiGnome Award

Foxtrot, thanks for following me around and making little corrections and improvements like this one. We need to make an award in your honor. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 09:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed. I'm one day behind on skimming through the recent changes to make little improvements like that one, but I should be caught up today. :-) --Foxtrot 13:24, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Communication with blocked users

If you can't figure out how blocked users can communicate with the administration of this project, then maybe you shouldn't be involved in decisions about who participates in this project. --Ed Poor Talk 19:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It took less than three minutes, and two of those minutes were typing up what I wanted to say! Glad there's no hard feelings. -Foxtrot 13:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Fashion values

Well done - brilliant expose of these decadent, toxic riff-raff! Bugler 03:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! Your supermodels article really got my brain whirling. -Foxtrot 03:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Recent block of User:Pellwyll

I think your recent block of User:Pellwyll should be extended. I think that kind of moronic vandalism is worthy of a 5-year or infinite block. Just some food for thought. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

That was my instinct, but I'm in a good mood today so I went a little lighter on the punishment. If he is so mindless as to wait half a year to do another act of silly vandalism and show us again how much of a self-claimed partisan idiot he is, then he really needs help. -Foxtrot 20:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Partisan idiot ... an oxymoron depending on which party we're speaking of.  :-D Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
true! :-) -Foxtrot 00:29, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Just For You

Thanks, JLauttamus! -Foxtrot 16:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I forgot a </div> at the end. Obviously my HTML skills have deteriorated somewhat in my older age! Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 10:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Ah, wonderful. Thank you so much! -Foxtrot 11:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


Thanks, Foxtrot. I've only just seen that rubbish, and I thank you and Jpatt for your support. Bugler 16:54, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

No problem. I do not stand for libelous and inflammatory comments, especially from those punks. -Foxtrot 16:57, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


Thanks for the heads up... I'll check out the spam filter ASAP. CPWebmaster 13:11, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Phil, for taking care of the spam filter and the CAPTCHA and the category boxes! Has anyone given you a medal yet? -Foxtrot 23:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)


Let's show User:Saxplayer on parole for 180 days, effective yesterday (27 October 2008).--TerryHTalk 08:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Done. See User:Saxplayer. -Foxtrot 12:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


Thanks for the apology. Yesterday I wouldn't have accepted it. Today I will. AlanE 18:16, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Sorry again for the trouble. -Foxtrot 03:16, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Here's why I can be a A few months ago I turned a stub into a 400 or so word article on the Assyrians. Probably took only an hour or so....but it was a wasted hour. Check out Assyrian Empire which was already on site and which I discovered yesterday. This happens all the time. If Andy would give me access "at night" (it's a little after 8AM here now!)I could do a lot of these checks myself, but my only time (usually) that I can do this sort of thing is in my late afternoon/early evening. From now until then I can only be on intermittently...hence the up at four to get an uninterrupted run at articles I need to concentrate on. Cheers.AlanE 16:16, 3 November 2008 (EST)
That can be really frustrating! I remember being in similar shoes before I got night editing. What I used to do back then is I would look at articles I'd want to create or edit and then write my text in a text editor. Then in that brief window where I could edit, I'd copy & paste them in (hopefully no one had majorly edited the page in the meantime). Even if you don't have night edit abilities, you can still search for pages and view their source, which is not as good as the real thing but isn't all that bad either. Also, since you've had edit rights before, I don't think it'll be long before Andy gives them to you again. -Foxtrot 18:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Re: Environmentalism

Thanks for the rework! It's very well stated. HelpJazz 18:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Great! Glad to have met your standards -Foxtrot 18:42, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Lol don't make it sound so.... commanding. Despite my sometimes heavy-handed correction procedures, I actually have a pretty big gray zone. HelpJazz 18:48, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I made sure to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, Master. -Foxtrot 18:49, 4 November 2008 (EST)
*wchapssh!* HelpJazz 18:57, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Musical Instruments

By all means have categories for the various types of musical instruments, however to delete the overall classification is a mistake I think. There are not so many of them that a "musical instrument" category would get over-full. What are we going to do with "Composers" where there will be ten times the number? AlanE 15:03, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Each of these individual musical instruments are still part of the supercategory of Musical Instruments. Also, there were a few things in that category that I noticed would not drop down into subcategories, like Fret or some strange musical instrument like the theremin. I am not deleting the overall classification, so I'm confused by your statement. -Foxtrot 15:27, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I see. I only saw the "Category: String Instruments" at the bottom of the Cello page, where there had been "Category: Musical Instruments" so I assumed it had been deleted completely. It was only when I went into the string section did I see the to speak. I still wonder why the original category has to be taken away from the individual articles when it is no problem having them both there....and most places classifications go from overall down...not sub-category least in my experience. Know what I mean? (Gotta go. I'll be out for an hour.) AlanE 15:52, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Aha, that's the source of the confusion. When there's a more specific category to place an article in, there's no sense in keeping the super categories. If you go to Category:String Instruments, you'll see that's in Category:Musical Instruments and the hierarchy continues. If we kept the whole hierarchy as cats on the articles, then for one, we'd have too many cats (String Instruments, Musical Instruments, Music, etc) and for the other, we'd be defeating the purpose of having hierarchicalized categories. -Foxtrot 15:55, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Ah well...I tried. AlanE 16:55, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Check the Talk page for [[Category: Musical Instruments. I only got onto it late so was in a flaming hurry before the door slammed. I'll do anything in the morning that wasn't done. AlanE 00:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Well said Foxtrot. It gets too confusing to have everything in the supercategory. BrianCo 04:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
AlanE, thanks for your good work organizing Category:Musical Instruments. Thanks, too, BrianCo, for your kind words. -Foxtrot 06:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)

First Black President edit

Your edit to First Black President is interesting, and I think it should be included without the strong editorializing, perhaps in a new section. Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 11:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, to give credit where it's due, it wasn't me who added that line to the article. It simply got deleted with User:RJJensen's edit and I felt that was (hopefully) an innocent mistake and reinstated it. -Foxtrot 11:08, 19 November 2008 (EST)
OK. Upon reflection, my reversion was probably overzealous. There was some enlightening material that got reverted. Feel free to restore as you think best.--Aschlafly 11:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
Will do, captain! -Foxtrot 11:47, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Kauhuissani block

You blocked User:Kauhuissani for five years! He put a speedy tag to an article, he didn't delete that article. And, in all honesty, that article deserved that speedy tag! And why are admins over the rules? Kauhuissani thought it was the work of a parodist. Are YOU sure that the author of that article is not a parodist? Even if you are, don't block a user for FIVE years for this. Write to his talk page, explain to him why he is wrong and if you really want to be mean, block him for one day! We are Conservatives, and Conservatives should be tolerant, for Heaven's sake. --Olen 08:36, 22 November 2008 (EST)

He was repeatedly told that the article was not the work of a parodist. All he needed to do was take a moment and look at the history to see that User:Ed_Poor created it, one of our respected admins. He did not listen and insisted on overstepping his boundaries, by thrice placing the speedy tag on the article and not using the Talk page to even discuss the matter. That is willful disregard of other editors and of the leadership structure.-Foxtrot 14:57, 22 November 2008 (EST)


I know you got the right to ban anybody for anything, but this ban really puts mortal fear in me. Are you going to ban people for typos next?

Rcollins created Nut (fastener) and Nut (fruit) simultaneously as part of his (good) move to turn Nut into a true disambig page. It seems that he simply put the image in the wrong article, and he got a three month ban for that? This sends all sorts of wrong messages. Please reconsider. --AlanS 18:28, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Wow. Thanks for alerting me. I'll unblock him -Foxtrot 18:52, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Awesome, thanks. :) --AlanS 19:26, 23 November 2008 (EST)
By the way, you're reading waaaaaay too much sinister intent into the actions of editors here. Mortal fear? Boo! hehehe. Seriously, though. We're all here to help each other out, and sometimes that means stepping on someone else's toes by accident. -Foxtrot 19:27, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for unblocking me... it cool i can see how that can get mixed up in all the active editing taking place. -User:Rcollins 21:08, 23 November 2008 (PST)
No problem! -Foxtrot 01:02, 24 November 2008 (EST)

New users must prove themselves, considering the frequency of banned users creating new identities. --Ed Poor Talk 16:48, 27 November 2008 (EST)

New user won't be able to "prove themselves" if they get month-long blocks for simple mistakes, though. --AlanS 17:02, 27 November 2008 (EST)
Alan, the blocker made a mistake and it has been rectified and the user is now editing without problem. Such long blocks are necessary because of all the vandals and parodists that come to this site. Sometimes innocent users fall victim, but as this example shows, the errors are quickly rectified and life on CP continues. -Foxtrot 17:05, 27 November 2008 (EST)
I know the error has been rectified, and I thanked your for your unblocking. However, I completely disagree with the claim that such long blocks are necessary. But don't get me started - I don't want to risk yet another block whoever reads this. Let's just say that the view isn't quite as awesome from down here as it is from your perspective. --AlanS 17:35, 27 November 2008 (EST)
okay, but keep in mind that we have CP's best interests at heart. -Foxtrot 17:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Block of User:FernoKlump

Hello, you recently blocked a user for three months. Will you please address the concern brought up by another editor here. Thanks. HenryS 19:41, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Henry, I unblocked him after an email discussion. -Foxtrot 19:44, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I was unaware. Thank you. Though I should point out that I think he deserved a block for such comments. HenryS 19:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Ok, no problem.-Foxtrot 19:48, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Uh oh, this doesn't sound good for me! =) However long you block me for, be sure to do the same to Bugler. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 19:51, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Is that an order?? -Foxtrot 19:53, 24 November 2008 (EST)
I'd be a lot cooler if it was... FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 20:13, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Personal tools