User talk:PeterKa

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, PeterKa, 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, PeterKa!

Joaquín Martínez 21:47, 25 January 2014 (EST)

We don't allow copying from other sources, unless the contributor wrote the material that was published at the other source. Are you the original author of No Gun Ri?--Andy Schlafly 23:50, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Yes. I am. The material was on Wikipedia years ago. But the current No Gun Ri article is quite different. PeterKa 00:02, 16 December 2013 (EST)
OK, thanks for your answer.--Andy Schlafly 09:26, 16 December 2013 (EST)
It is the same story with Roman Warm Period. I wrote it a while back for Wikipedia, but later a liberal editor came along and revised the POV. PeterKa 20:33, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Nuclear option

I see that I may have disparaged your writing style. No offense was intended. You made a great improvement to an earlier version. It seems that we each have our pet peeves: you believe a definition shouldn't say what some people may think about the consequences of something; it should say what that something is. And I have a peeve about "when". Other than that, you write well. SamHB 22:40, 22 December 2013 (EST)

I rewrote the opening and added additional material. Tell me what you think. PeterKa 21:20, 1 January 2014 (EST)


Contents of Republic of China article moved to Taiwan; please make necessary corrections as you see fit. Karajou 01:11, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Cool. Will do. PeterKa 01:42, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Quick note

I notified some Admins about the unlocking of the articles. I have nothing further to say about this matter. Conservative 03:15, 30 January 2014 (EST)

Um, are certainly being very mysterious. Welcome back? PeterKa 07:18, 30 January 2014 (EST)

China history, et al

Instead of trimming articles, split them. The History of China article could be split into, say, four or five articles that cover a specific timeline, i.e. History of China: Ming dynasty: 1368-1644, History of China: Reforms 1901-1908, etc. Think it's possible? Karajou 06:28, 21 February 2014 (EST)

What I trimmed was material about internal Communist party wrangling, the coverage of which was all out of proportion to every other issue. I don't think anything terribly interesting was lost. It was all about who was up and who was down and what titles they held. We already have a structure in which each of the traditional historic eras gets its own article: Qin dynasty, Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty and so forth. Template:History of China holds the story together. My vision is that each era receive a full treatment in the appropriate era article. Each one would also have a section and a summary in History of China. We're still a long way from that, but I'm getting there slowly. Unlike "History of China," the era articles are all too short. What's missing is an era article for the People's Republic. We could a create a separate article for People's Republic of China, since I already wrote a Republic of China article to cover the 1912 to 1949 era. Another possibility is History of the People's Republic of China. Either way, the modern history could be offloaded there. PeterKa 08:12, 21 February 2014 (EST)

Atheism article intro

I wanted something very authoritative noted in the beginning of the atheism article so I kept the Encyclopedias of Philosophy and other reference works being mentioned.

Second, the Greek derivation of the word atheism is somewhat complex and I didn't want the beginning of the article to get bogged down so I left that part available via the footnote (the third footnote). Conservative 17:34, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

I think we should act like we are the authority, even if we some ways away from actually being that. I got the derivation from Random House. The derivation probably not the second most important fact about atheism, but I didn't see anything else that stood out. PeterKa 22:10, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
Encyclopedias of Philosophy are the highest authority in this case and so I want to stick the original. Conservative 22:12, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

re: Diacritics

Since CP is primarily an American conservative encyclopedia, I am guessing the owner of Conservapedia will want to go with the Merriam-Webster format for diacritics. Conservative 21:41, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

I think we should put a recommendation to that effect in the style guide. Britannica uses Merriam-Webster spelling nowadays, so there is not really any difference between two. PeterKa 23:11, 23 July 2014 (EDT)
I think the diacritics section should go after "Talk pages and Archiving ": here after it is drawn up (unless it is lengthy and then it should go after "Debate topics"). We can also have a "See also" above the section with a full blown article page on it. Write up the suggested content and put it HERE. If you need to remind me to do it, no problem. Conservative 23:49, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

I am glad you liked the way I incorporated your diacritics material in the Manual of Style. Conservative 21:49, 24 July 2014 (EDT)

Page moves

As I understand it, editors license their work on CP on the condition of attribution, because each editor retains certain rights in their work as a part of the overall collective work. For this reason, the wiki software maintains a history of each article so that everyone can see who contributed what. When you move a page, the history for that page comes along with the move, so it is important to move the page and not just copy and paste the text of the page into a new page with a different title. So, it may be important to redo or fix what you have done with the Hunchback of Notre Dame in Paris. Many thanks for your understanding. Wschact 08:26, 13 August 2014 (EDT)t

There is a note about where the material came from in the edit summary. My understanding is that that is enough to satisfy the copyright requirements. PeterKa 00:03, 14 August 2014 (EDT)
Dear PeterKa, once again you did an improper move with Ebola. We need to record who contributed what so that we can properly attribute it to them. The attribution is now on the redirect page instead of the Ebola page. Many thanks! Wschact 19:08, 4 January 2015 (EST)
The edit summary says it was "moved from Ebola hemorrhagic fever." I don't see the problem. Even if you forget to do the edit summary correctly, you can put in a "dummy edit" later on to explain where material came. The important thing is that the history of the article can be reconstructed. PeterKa 19:42, 4 January 2015 (EST)
Maybe if you had said "read edit history found at..." but you are creating an edit history on Ebola which says that PeterKa wrote the whole thing. I suggest that you double check with Andy or someone else, because we must comply with the license for all of the earlier contributors. The way that I would solve this is to give most editors "Page Move" rights. Then there would be a tab at the top of each page which would allow you to use the wiki software to avoid this problem. Many thanks! Wschact 20:24, 4 January 2015 (EST)


Thanks for your suggestion on the talk page which is now called Nontheistic Thailand and child prostitution. I took your suggestion. Conservative 19:00, 21 February 2015 (EST)

Glad I could be of help. PeterKa 22:51, 26 February 2015 (EST)

Re: Atheism and intolerance

If you want to review the article Atheism and intolerance and fix any grammatical/formatting errors, it would be appreciated.

More work on the footnoting of the article is going to be done by the User: Conservative account this coming weekend. Conservative 00:24, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for unblocking me. (August was alerting me to a problem and blocking me was the only way he could communicate the issue.)--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2015 (EDT)


I was getting pretty tired of all the reverting! JohnSelway (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Glad to help! PeterKa (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2015 (EDT)

Perhaps you can help?

I have been wanting to upload an image of John Key for the article I wrote about him. If you can (as you have been helpful in the past) can you upload this image? - Thanks for your help. JohnSelway (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

I don't have upload rights, unless something has changed just recently. Try User:Karajou. He has done uploads for me. PeterKa (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[1]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.Conservative (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

That's nice to know. This is the first time we've charted since August. I suspect all the site maintenance has had a disruptive effect on traffic. PeterKa (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2016 (EDT)

Check your e-mail

Sorry to bother you, but please check your e-mail and get in touch with me when you have time.Hamnett (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2016 (EDT)


I am not sure why you removed my link from the talk page for the main page. I was trying to be helpful.

Are you a Christian? Because it seems like you are not, and if you are not, this is not a place for you.

Yours, in Christ,

--Vgambini (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2016 (EDT)

Merry Christmas


Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Merry Christmas to you too. PeterKa (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (EST)


You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

That's great news. Let's keep it up. PeterKa (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2017 (EST)

«»== Account promoted ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, this time to include uploading privileges. Please be sure to give attribution to the author of the image pursuant to CC or other licensing guidelines. Thank you!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2017 (EST) hey thanks

You're welcome!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2017 (EST)


After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. PeterKa (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (EDT)


Just for verification, was that you who messaged me? --1990'sguy (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2017 (EDT)

yes, it was me. PeterKa (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2017 (EDT)
OK. I relied. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2017 (EDT)


I sent you an email. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

yes. I saw it. PeterKa (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2017 (EDT)