User talk:Lostcaesar

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Dear Lostcaesar,

I am the person who invited you here. I made a change in the Jesus article especially for you.


Here is how the Jesus article now reads:

The Historical Jesus

It may surprise some readers to learn that modern historians generally place the actual date of his birth between 7 and 4 B.C. due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the Gregorian Calendar which is in use today throughout the civilized world.

Occasionally non-historians deny the existence of Jesus, [1] [2] but few scholars take this seriously. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115[3], and Josephus, a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him. [4]. Dr. Gary Habermas wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of the existence of Jesus in his work The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ which discusses many historical sources which mention Jesus.




If you could create a article called the Histority of Jesus it would be much appreciated. Please let me know if you want to work on the Jesus article and I think we can work something out.

Conservative 00:02, 5 May 2007 (EDT)conservative

Beautiful work on the Second_Epistle_of_Peter! Thank you!--Aschlafly 08:26, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Contents

suggestion

You write some good material. I suggest you put Category tags on your articles so people can find them. I did this for you at: Luke and 'the' Census. I am also going to put a "See also" in the Gospel of Luke article that points to your article. Conservative 20:13, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

addendum

I put two category tags on your Second Epistle of Peter article too. Conservative 20:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

re: help

if you ever need tech help here are the people to help you: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop

Secondly, I am look at your Jesus edits. Conservative 20:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

re: tech issues

Dear Lostcaesar,

Please do not let my category tags comment dissuade you from posting at Conservapedia. I just think you material is good and want it to be seen more. I would rather have you post new articles without category tags and then give up because you don't feel like learning how to put category tags. LOL Conservative 22:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Luke and 'the' Census

Hi there, I have moved Luke and 'the' Census to User:Lostcaesar/Luke and 'the' Census. My justification for this move is that the article is quite unencyclopedic; it refers to the reader as "you", and the writer as "we" or "me". This is not acceptable, though can easily be fixed. Happy editing! --Hojimachongtalk 19:54, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a few "we" words but no "me" or "you" words. I agree that "we" should be avoided, however, I don't think a whole article of a high quality calibre should be temporarily removed for 2 or 3 "we" words. Anyways, I removed the 2 or 3 "we" words and put the article back in Conservapedia. Conservative 20:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

re: recent action

I think Hoji's action was inappropriate and ideological. He is one of the few liberal sysops. I saw his total removal of your article due to a few "we"'s. Let me know if he does something inappropriate again and I can contact User:Aschlafly who is the director of the site or you can contact him yourself. Conservative 20:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

question

Do you want to become a Admin/Sysop? The duties are super light and you can block disruptive users and protect certain articles from general editing. In short, the benefits way outweight the cost. I think you would make an excellent Admin. It is also impossible to block an Admin unless of course the director of the site feels it is appropriate. Conservative 20:29, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

don't worry about your current content

don't worry about your current content. Please read the following:

Please see the director of Conservapedia's comments to the Christian Post:

"The latest alternative to Wikipedia is putting a conservative Christian spin on the idea of web-based, user-controlled encyclopedias.

Conservapedia, the new online encyclopedia launched last November, has branded itself as “a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.”

“Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America,” the front page of its website reads."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070306/26179_Conservapedia_Challenges_%27Anti-Christian%27_Wiki.htm

Conservative 20:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

reply: Jesus and history

Dear Lostcaesar,

I just know that you have some familiarity with the historical evidence for Jesus because you edited this article at Wikipedia. All my best sources regarding this matter are no longer at my immediate disposal and I need to update my personal library. I am also more limited in regards to my time at Conservapedia. I just thought you might want to create this article: Historicity of Jesus which is currently blank in the Jesus article. Conservative 15:55, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not know much about copyright issues in regards to how similar something can be to another webpage. I am sure that you would do a good job though and I know you have some interest in the topic. Conservative 17:44, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Ask to be an Admin!

I will help you but ask to be an Admin! LOL Conservative 17:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Since you asked ...

Since you asked how to ask how to be an Admin I decided to nominate you. Here is the nomination for your adminship: Conservapedia:Sysop contest/Nominations/Lostcaesar Being a Admin is a very light duty position (I rarely am sent messages) and there are a lot of perks (you cannot be blocked except by the owner of the site, you can block troublemakers, you can protect articles, and you can edit protected articles). Conservative 18:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

re: your nomination page: Go ahead if you want to describe yourself and your thoughts on Conservapedia

re: your nomination page: Go ahead if you want to describe yourself and your thoughts on Conservapedia. Conservative 18:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Compliment

Wonderful revision of the crusade article.Богдан Talk 16:37, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Admin

I think the only obstacle to you being a Sysop/Admin is more edits to Conservapedia or possibly a higher average edit volume. I don't agree with this criteria in your case, but I thought I would tell you. Conservative 16:57, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Well if you cannot increase your edits or your average edits per month then perhaps over the long term you can gain Sysop status. Conservative 15:01, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Conservative, there is exactly zero chance of it happening. Zero. You shouldn't ever be making promises or suggestions of this sort. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:13, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
TK, I disagree. I spoke to the director of this site and it is simply not true in any way shape or manner that LostCaesar has a zero chance of being an Admin. Conservative 19:13, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay, not zero. However you posting things like this in public, lowers them considerably. Not to mention is is highly unfair to the many good and productive editors we have already, to make it appear you, or we, are favoring someone over them. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools