Royal Society reference
Why did you think the Royal Society ref wasn't relevant. It says in the article "some versions of creationism are incompatible with the scientific evidence" JoshuaZ 23:32, 6 February 2007 (EST)
My mistake, I must have missed that... feel free to put it back... PhilipB 08:55, 7 February 2007 (EST)
I see that you granted User:Conservative sysop status "so that you can implement your propositions to The Theory of Evolution." IMHO this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However...
I don't know what the policy is here, but on WIkipedia there is a policy that sysops are supposed to keep their sysop and editing actions separate. They are not supposed to perform sysop actions to articles of which they are active editors. They are supposed to perform sysop actions only on articles for which they are capable of acting in a disinterested way.
If Conservapedia has a policy governing appropriate sysop behavior, it might be appropriate to post it if it's not already posted, and to include a link to it when informing new sysops of their elevation. Dpbsmith 12:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Could you explain why you reverted my last edit? Thanks. JoshuaZ 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Yes, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. PhilipB 13:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Sweet pics :)
Thanks for the sysop designation
I wish to thank the staff of Conservapedia for the sysop designation. I made the changes to the The Theory of Evolution article plus added another small change that is entirely factual.
Secondly, you might want to lock down the macroevolution because I think it will be a major target for liberal vandals and editors insisting on a liberal viewpoint despite the empirical science in this area. Conservative 20:04, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
- Your welcome and thanks for the edits! Currently it is not entirely necessary to protect the macroevolution page because it has not been vandalized or filled with any bias. Of course, this may change in the future and in that case we would protect the page. PhilipB 21:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Attacks on Conservapedia
I am guessing as Conservapedia gains in popularity that the attacks on it will also be stepped up.
Here are two contacts at two websites which have gotten attacked a lot due to their conservative content and I am sure they could give you some suggestions:
1. Chris Ashcroft at www.creationwiki.org: http://creationwiki.org/User:Ashcraft
I am guessing you will have to register at www.creationwiki.org in order to contact Chris Ashcroft.
2. JP Holding at www.tektonics.org whose site gets attacked by atheists: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conservative 21:29, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
- Thanks a lot for these insights! I'll check them out... PhilipB 21:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Deletion of draft
I am going to register my concern and displeasure of your deletion of the evolution draft space without any discussion of the matter. JoshuaZ 23:27, 27 February 2007 (EST)
My Logo Entries
Comments on this one
Too detailed. Doesn't look terrible when reduced to 135x135 px but doesn't look great either. Dpbsmith 21:40, 1 March 2007 (EST)
I like the blue color, but the "We the People" is a bit confusing and distracting, and "Conservapedia" is not prominent enough. ~ SharonS 22:06, 1 March 2007 (EST)
The blue letters were legible though small on my monitor at home, but due to some difference in color balance or something when I look at it here they are practically invisible. Dpbsmith 15:55, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Comments on that one
Better than the other one when reduced to 135x135 px. If you don't mind I'm going to modify the link to make them 135x135 px. (If you do mind, just revert). Dpbsmith 21:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- No problem PhilipB 21:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)
This one is pretty cool. I like how it features "We the People", yet "Conservapedia" is still the center of attention. The color scheme might be a bit too dull right now, but the idea definitely has potential. ~ SharonS
What about giving it just a bit of an S-curve at the left and right sides (using transparency) to suggest the idea of a scroll, or at least something not lying perfectly flat? Dpbsmith 15:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)
I like it. I do not think it is too dull. if it gets much brighter it will be distracting. --TimSvendsen 22:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Article for deletion
- Thanks a lot for pointing that out... PhilipB 21:51, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Reversion without discussion
If you are going to revert, please explain why and discuss the matter on the ID talk page. Simply reverting isn't helpful and can be considered rude. JoshuaZ 17:03, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Interestly enough, Tsumetai did not discuss Harpie Snark's edits before he reverted...Just pointing that out. But a discussion would have been appropriate in both cases. --<<-David R->> 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Have you read the talk page? I discussed Harpie's edits the first time they were made. Tsumetai 17:10, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I do not think that a discussion is necessary in this case. The article was clearly biased and Harpie Snark greatly improved it. PhilipB 17:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Then perhaps you can address the points I made on the talk page. Tsumetai 17:10, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Flying Spaghetti Monster
I disagree with your deletion of this topic. The matter has gotten extensive coverage and has been discussed by the New York Times and other media sources, a number of pro-evolution or anti-creationism groups and some major creationist organizations such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. JoshuaZ 22:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)
I also disagree. I modified the page to make it clear that it wasn't a real religion, just a parody religion, and took out some other parts that were clearly frivolous. But it's something that people use to argue against creationism, etc., and so a clear explanation of it is appropriate. Adding responses to the arguments would be even better. Why delete it?
- Sorry for deleting guys, I jumped the gun. The article is now restored. PhilipB 22:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Sorry 'bout that. Why are your rules called commandments? - Sane
- After the Biblical "Ten Commandments," except we don't have ten... yet. PhilipB 23:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Whoops, thanks for catching that... PhilipB 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)
You left a message on his/her page saying Please provide an appropriate citation for the Gaul article. However, people who edited the page before him/her did not provide citations and you didn't do anything about it. ShiningHope 20:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- I suspected he had made the information up. Correct me if I am wrong. PhilipB 20:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- You suspect? Do you have proof?
Are you going to delete all articles that contain information you don't know? Just because you don't know information that's in an article, it's no reason to 'suspect' that it's made up.ShiningHope 21:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)
I did a quick Google search and checked numerous other sources. I could not find anything about these two. PhilipB 21:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- Why did you even need to do a Google search? Have you honestly never heard of Asterix and Obelix? Maybe you misspelt the names when you did the search. Please try again.ShiningHope 21:42, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Which of the 5 Conservapedia Commandments did I break with my changes to the Clamato article?
- Yeah, I saw that too. I would also be interested to know. --Horace 21:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Not Encyclopedic content PhilipB 21:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)
My article on Theistic Evolution  has been severely vandalized by enraged non-conservatives. Could you please restore the page to my last edit and punish the vandals?
Ray Martinez 18:51, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Re: Theistic evolution article
see my comments on the talk page of the article. Conservative 19:59, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Second Law of Thermodynamics
I'd like to request the unprotection of Second Law of Thermodynamics (protected by you on March 4 or 3, depending on timezone). The article's Talk page raises a number of issues with the current article that have not been addressed, and unprotection would help to improve the article significantly. --Sid 3050 12:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I take exception to this edit. There really isn't any reason not to link to it, even if we don't support it; It's mentioned enough elsewhere. Additionally, it's the prime example of the potential (sheer content-volume-wise) of what a Wiki can do. I would appreciate if they stayed, respond on my talk page if you would like to debate further. --Hojimachongtalk 22:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- But really, Conservapedia is one of many Wikis, and isn't one of the more notable ones (which is one of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion). In contrast, Wikipedia is unarguably the largest and most shining example of what a Wiki can accomplish. --Hojimachongtalk 22:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- We are a Mediawiki wiki; bottom-right corner of every page, it says so. This isn't to be confused with the Wikimedia wikis; this is a non-profit organization, which owns Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikicommons, etc. And Wikipedia makes reference to Conservapedia as a major Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wikis. I mean, really, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to not mention Wikipedia. --Hojimachongtalk 22:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- It makes sense in that Wikipedia is the entire reason that Conservapedia exists is to combat the alleged overliberalness of Wikipedia. Besides, Wikipedia is all over this site. Is there some sort of goal you wish to accompish by removing the links? Because if it's to decrease traffic to Wikipedia or something, it probably won't work. --Hojimachongtalk 23:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
What's with the revert? I fixed a grammatical error and put in a citation needed tag when a fact was asserted without a citation to back it up. --John 23:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
On a purely technical note, the F-117 isn't a fighter; it's a bomber. Yes, it has the "F-" prefix, but the aircraft has never played a role other than ground attack (you seem to already know that, seeing as how it was in the F-117 article). However, since there are many different stealth fighters (F-22 Raptor, F-35 JSF, etc.), I don't think Stealth fighter should redirect. I think you could contribute greatly to the Stealth fighter article, though. Thanks for reading all the way to here, --Hojimachongtalk 00:28, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
spam fighting extensions
I hear you're the person to go to, to talk about MediaWiki-related things. This site desperately needs some spam fighting type extensions. --Ymmotrojam 23:47, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
If you would be so kind
If you know how, I would love your help configuring my monobook.css (at User:Hojimachong/monobook.css) to make it look similar to the old layout. I'm just, way more familiar with the old layout, and think I will be more efficient while using it. Feel free to edit my monobook.css page, I'm pretty sure I made a really, really stupid mistake. Thanks! --Hojimachongtalk 15:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
New proof for the logo...
Please take a look....
At the "Abuse" page, last item, "Abuse of sysop priviledge". [] I posted there that I would ask a few other Sysop's to look at what they are talking about. Please don't rush, and consider the edits, etc. Your decision if you want to post there, what you think, or wherever. THANKS! Please, you can thank me later for this good turn. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 08:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)