User talk:RobSmith

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

ARCHIVES

Archive 1 (warning: > 90k) | Archive 2 (warning: > 58k)

Archive 3 (warning: > 92k) | Archive 4 (warning: > 136k)

Personal Best!

136K is very impressive! :P - --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 05:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

News Item

I saw you could change the news on the main page. I thought this item, where a liberal blogger suggest a woman convicted of murder be released because she got away with it for 35 years might be of interest to the comunity. ItMathers 13:23, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Question: Doesn't partisanship for the sake of partisanship work to the advantage of jihadists and al-Qaeda, dividing America, and further the agenda of liberals and terrorist dupes? Rob Smith 13:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I thought the position the guy took in the blog was clear. Guess not. ItMathers 13:40, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I don't even see the word "liberal" in the text; it would have to be put in by an editor here by extrapolation, based upon limited sourcing. It's a news item, and if opinions are formed based upon newsitems, God help us all. In a wider context, you're dealing with divisive social issues. I'm not certain if you are aware, but there's a war on (it's been in all the newspapers). I don't think it's possible to win a war if the American people are focused upon blaming themselves and each other for divisive social issues.
Ultimately, its just commie prop that works to the advantage of America's enemies, and only furthers thier agenda when highlighted. Rob Smith 13:52, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
It is fodder for extrapolation. The blogger writes that the woman should not be punished, that her time spent hiding from the authorities ammounted to a sentence harsher than the state's. I think that makes the position he takes a liberal one. A real conservative would not accept this as "punishment"--she escaped from prison, after she received a life sentence. I don't feel safe living in a country where a convicted murderer is allowed to live her life without punishment just because she didn't commit any more crimes. That's why I exercise my right to bare arms in the home when I am concerned for my safety. ItMathers 14:15, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
I respect fully dissent. (a) We have limited information. (b) There is nothing to make this a liberal vs conservative issue, other than our own prejudices. (c) God preaches mercy. (d) God established Cities of Refuge. [1] (e) Moses and King David were both willful murderers. Rob Smith 14:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
Now I see what you're saying. I agree and I'll try to find better examples in the future. Thanks! ItMathers 14:41, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Mathers, I think your heart is in the right place, but on items like this, RobS is our resident expert. Sometimes you need to be sure to ask him to explain more fully. What this man knows about subversion and the roots of what we see bearing fruit today, is second nature to him, and he often forgets more about it than we will learn in a lifetime. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:35, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a good point. I brought this to Rob intially because I knew he would know, more than anyone else, how to handle it. I am glad the people like Rob are here. ItMathers 18:37, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry

I didn't realize that a sysop had deleted the "Guilt by Association" article. I just saw it on the most wanted list and made it. I was researching the topic so I could expand to discuss how the libs always try to slam McCarthy with the term, and otheral liberal lies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Lukecorlando 18:14, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Hey Luke! Check this out: [[2]] Rob suggested I pass that on to you for a starting point in making a new article about Guilt by Association. Let me know what you think, and I am sure Rob will give you any advice you ask for here! --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:22, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

quick question

Dear Robs,

Did they have volume 2 of that book? If i am not mistaken you said you were going to check today. Conservative 21:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

I sent you a email

Dear Robs,

I just sent you an email. Regarding the additional info you gave me. Conservative 22:47, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Flanders role on McCarthy Page

The talk page is locked on the Joseph McCarthy page. So, it's difficult to address any issues pertaining to the page. To wit, there are unsubstatiated statements in italics referring to Senator Flanders's initiative to censure the Senator from Wisconsin:


While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.


The citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March speech) by the administration. Given Flanders's professed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it is remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions.

I request that the italicized statements be either deleted or substantiated with proper references.

Sincerely, User:Norwich 10/22/07

Ok, I am somewhat in agreement, a personal innterpretation being that basically Ike engineered silencing McCarthy. I'll process the request. Rob Smith 14:10, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

quick note

RobS, I just sent you an important email. Conservative 15:49, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Democratic socialism

Hi Rob, I was wondering if you could unprotect this article. It was vandalized over a week ago, and both vandals have been blocked. I'd like to categorize it and embolden the title. Thanks, Greg 21:52, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

thanks for your help and....

Dear RobS,

Thanks for your help on the homosexuality and homicide material. I just posted the material. I have notified various people to link to the material and hopefully they will. In light of hate crime legislation, I think the material has some relevance. Conservative 23:08, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Your userpage

I noticed a formatting error on your userpage today, and I found the source in your userboxes. I remade a version of your user page here if you'd like to fix the problem. The red border around a few of the userboxes is gone, I played around with it and couldn't get it to work, but that's the only change I made. Greg 19:29, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Berlet/Brandt

Dear RobS,

I am not disagree with material you wrote. At the same time, I really don't understand the first paragraph plus I think you need to cite your sources and elaborate more on how Brandt/Berlet were feuding.

Here is the first paragraph that I don't understand:

"An ugly sectarian dispute between two far leftist writers reared its head in Wikipedia in 2005 and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant, yet unresolved, until the necessity to elevate a “controversial expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme,” which would have precluded using the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate."

Secondly, I don't really see how Berlet and Brandt are feuding here:

"Chip Berlet built a career writing in various far-left revolutionary publications, including Guardian, founded by KGB agent Cedric Belfrage, and whose writers included Wilfred Burchett who introduce Ho Chi Minh to American readers, assisted in extracting confessions from Korean War POWs, spread disinformation in its pages about American use of germ warfare which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the Kremlin. Berlet at one time served on Daniel Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme leftism demands ideological purity from its followers, and Berlet demanded removal of Fletcher Prouty from the Board. Prouty, a former Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as “Man X” in the Oliver Stone film JFK, and Berlet considered him a fascist."


Lastly, as I stated earlier you need to cite your sources. I hope you don't mind the constructive remarks I am making here but I think you need to make things clearer plus give your readers some assistance via sources. Conservative 17:37, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. And I definetely will need some input on the writing style for clarity. All of it, all of it, will be cited. That intro is a basic outline as to what is going to follow. Right now, the idea is to merge all three sections, Berlet, Brandt, Essjay, add some more content, and include Jimbo Wales statement to Editor & Publisher which was based upon information he got from Berlet, and only fueled the whole controversy, which now has claimed numerous victims all claiming stalking, harassment, outing without consent, libel and defamation, etc. etc. etc.
I'll be working on it somemore in a few hours. Rob Smith 18:19, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
No problem. I think one of the major issues is that it appears as if "controversial expert" is some official designation at Wikipedia but you don't clearly state that. I also think you need to tidy up the rest of the first paragraph in terms of clarity and I would suggest asking people for their feedback until there is sufficient clarity. I also don't clearly see a feud between Brandt/Berlet. A feud to me conjurs up "volleys" occuring between parties. Conservative 18:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
"expert" is a designation Berlet was granted, in violation of thier own stated policies. However, it appears rescinded now, as WP got burned on the issue of "experts" in the Essjay controversy. They appear now to be referred to as "knowledgeable editors".
The Brandt/Berlet dispute predates Wikipedia, begins in 1991. It was reignited in 2005. Rob Smith 20:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

your requested feedback

The second and third paragraphs are fine now except for the lack of current citations. The first paragraph is still unclear.

Are these Wikipedia rankings: “controversial expert" and “partisan and extreme"? If so, you have to tell your readers this. A good rule of thumb would be to assume that your readers do not know "Wikitalk". Conservative 21:50, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I will be unable to help you further until Saturday or perhaps later. I am sure you can ask someone else though. Conservative 21:51, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I'll put a cite in on the partisan vs extreme shortly. And the "controversial expert" portion was indeed an Arbitration ruling, which superceded existing No Original Research policy which stated, "such experts do not occupy a position of privilege," which I think is already cited in the Chip Berlet subsection already. But "expert" seems to be language they now are abandoning, and they are no longer hiding the fact that certain persons, ideas, and agendas are given preference, if not outright being promoted. Rob Smith 21:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure why these pages exist...

Going through the uncategorized pages list, I found these two pages: [3] and [4]. I'm not sure why they exist. The user hasn't been active since, and I was wondering if they should be deleted. Greg 23:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. You're right. The names are not even quite correct anyway. I'll get rid of them. Rob Smith 23:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Could you also delete the page I made to fix your userpage? Here is a link: [5]. Greg 23:43, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Race Ref

Rob, thanks for this help. --Ed Poor Talk 16:39, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

HelpJazz Block

Why did you block HelpJazz?--Tash 17:31, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Tendentious editing through sockpuppets. Rob Smith 17:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Maestro

I will review his edits later tonight. DanH 19:58, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Writer's Guild

I responded to you at Talk:Writer's Guild of America. Thank you for correcting my edit, by the way.

TO: RobS

Dear RobS,

I just sent you an important email. If you could respond I would appreciate it.Conservative 21:34, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I responded to your email and have a pleasant surprise for you.Conservative 23:56, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Upper Peninsula War

Hi Rob, I was wondering if you were familiar with the Wikipedia fiasco on the Upper Peninsula War; a conflict which never occurred but nonetheless earned a Wikipedia entry for a while. Thought you might want to add it to the Wikipedia article. Greg 23:40, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks. Being from Wisconsin, us Cheeseheads have always regarded the UP as irredenta so I am familiar with the dispute (I got family up there). There's still a movement to this day to create a separate State of Superior, taking in portions of the northern Wisconsin & the UP.
(Incidental totally irrelevent factoid: While residents of the UP are commonly called "Yuppers," Yuppers have always called those who live beneath the Bridge "trolls." That, it appears, is the original meaning of "troll," "one who lives beneath the bridge.") Rob Smith 15:47, 10 November 2007 (EST)

research request

RobS,

Currently the conservapedia homosexuality article states this:

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and domestic violence:

“ Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community... Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are HIV-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humilation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.[6]

Given the brutality of homosexual homicides, I am betting there may be more in relation to homosexual domestic abuse and partners harming pets. It appears as if in general domestic abusers who also engage in pet abuse are often the most violent.[7]

Here is a tip: The medical literature often uses the term MSM or men who have sex with men as a term for those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Do you have any interest in helping me research this matter? Conservative 21:41, 10 November 2007 (EST)

to: Robs

Dear RobS,

I think I found what I am looking for but I am not sure how to find this work.

Here is the work:

“HIV Violence: A National Report Published by the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project and the National Association of People with AIDS,” 1996.

Any suggestions? Conservative 19:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you an important email

I just sent you an important email. By the way, I don't need your help with the aforementioned homosexuality/domestic abuse/pet abuse material anymore. 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Question

Hi Rob,

What's the difference between the categories KGB and KGB Agents and Sources? They both seem to have individual names in them. Does one take prominence over the other? Thanks Learn together 16:39, 14 November 2007 (EST)

  • Sorry, Bill....but Andy asked me to be the "decider" as to categories. Perhaps we have been over that already? Rob is off for the Holiday so cannot answer. KGB is the main category. If you go to that category page, you will clearly see that KGB Agents and Sources is a sub-category of KGB. Does that help you out? --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:08, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Not really, they both appear to be used in the same fashion. That's what I was curious about. Learn together 17:18, 14 November 2007 (EST)
  • When one goes to the Category, KGB, it says right in the top section that the KGB category contains the sub-category agents and sources! How is that unclear? Your answer is, Agents and Sources is a sub category of KGB, which is the main, top level category there. KGB would most likely be a sub category of Intelligence Agencies then. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:27, 14 November 2007 (EST)
It doesn't help when the articles under KGB are all individuals. Wouldn't that make them agents? That's what I was asking Rob about. There may be another nuance I am not aware of. Learn together 17:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)
  • I apologize for not making myself, clear Bill. The article, if there is one, about the KGB would will under the cat "Intelligence Agencies" and possible Soviet Government or the like. The individual's would need to be moved to the sub category, agents and sources. Sorry for my confusion. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:42, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Source for Murray Rothbard article

Hello Rob, do you know of any better sources to cite for the Murray Rothbard article? I don't, although Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty, which I have not read and don't have a copy of handy, may cover the same material. Love him or hate him, Justin Raimondo's book about Murray Rothbard is the standard reference (and to my knowledge the only biography) available on Rothbard.

Also, on another subject, if Daily Kos and the Center for Democratic Renewal aren't hate groups, my proposal in that case would be that Category: Hate Groups should be deleted. To my knowledge "hate groups" is a neologism invented by the Southern Poverty Law Center for the purpose of ritual defamation, and has often been misapplied by them and others to conservative groups. Turnabout is fair play, or if not, the term shouldn't be used at all. Just my two cents. Parrothead 07:18, 4 December 2007 (EST)

  • Raimondo's book about Murray Rothbard is the standard reference
  • What? in Cuba, N. Korea, and CCP gulags? or is it among CNN & DNC talking points? Something is needed to support that claim.
  • As to the CDR, it would be interesting to see some kind of sourcing or evidence to support the claim. I wasn't aware liberal publications and institutions held a strict definition of the term as its application seems arbitrary in many cases. Rob Smith 16:39, 5 December 2007 (EST)
Please stop being ridiculous. Raimondo and Rothbard are the polar opposite of Cuba and N. Korea, and I doubt CNN and the DNC even know who they are. Parrothead 20:50, 6 December 2007 (EST)
We'll probably need some answer to the questions raised by Stephan Schwatrz here, point by point, before Justin Raimando is considered a credible source about anything. Rob Smith 12:53, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Marx

I see you reverted me even though I clearly asked you to discuss on the talk page. So be it. I resent being called a "commie apologist" - pointing out thar Marx's work - for good or bad - had important ramifications for the study of sociology (not to mention economics and history) is not expressing approval for Marxism anymore than calling Adolf Hitler a politician is expressing approval of Nazism. Claude 17:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm; so Marx & Hitler are supposed to represent some polar opposites? Rob Smith 17:39, 6 December 2007 (EST)

My politics

I do not believe my personal politics has any bearing on how I edit. I try to be as unbiased as possible, a position you might consider. However, if you read my comments in the talk section of Homosexuality, you will find that I did argue in favour of CP's position of including Homosexuality as a sin, but that I also took issue with the biased representation of facts under disease. Further to that, I do not believe that I have had two basic arguments. While I have remained relatively silent lately, I initiated Sociology. Karl Marx happens to be one of the formative theorists. While some of his ideas are the subject of great debate/dispute, his perspective on a number of issues has greatly contributed to the field of sociology; though in actuality he was an economist. Do you have the ability to see both sides of an issue? Or are you blinded by your personal beliefs? --TrueGrit 18:36, 6 December 2007 (EST)

  • social issues underlying the spread of disease
  • Wow. So the argument is no longer that homosexual behavior is genetic, nor is it a personal choice, rather society forces people into homosexual activity. Sort of like the underlying social causes in the spread of tuberculousis; victims of society, like the homeless for example, are forced into homeless shelters where they are unwittingly exposed to tuberculousis. Is this similiar to the "social issues underlying the spread of disease" for persons engaged in homosexual behvaior?
  • You are truly dense. The underlying social factors related to the spread of disease amongst homosexuals, is the lack of education on the dangers. You see, health classes in school are for the most part focused on the dominant (in terms of commonality) heterosexual orientation. Lack of education on the risks would lead homosexuals to believe that they have nothing to worry about, because pregnancy is not an issue.
  • Commie rot.
I would argue that the main reason people use protection is to prevent birth, and that venereal disease is only a second thought, if it occurs at all. This lack of understanding of the issues is a result of lack of education, a social factor if you will. I said nothing about social factors affecting homosexuality. However, if you'd like to get into a debate about social factors, you are the one who suggested social factors.
  • I quoted you, "social issues."
Consider your use of the term "homosexual agenda". You are the one who suggests that homosexuals are socially created. Otherwise, how would we "convert" them, as you allege we do?
  • I think I said "choice."
  • I do not believe that [I] have had two basic arguments
  • Marxism and the gay agenda. I'm not even going to ask what these two have in common with each other, nor point out Marx, Lenin, and Stalin wrote very little on the subject. But American & European liberal activists seem obsessed, over the past 30+ years, with marrying the two movements. Frankly, it gets tiresome.
  • What I meant was that I have been involved in much more than just "Marx" and "Homosexuality". Do you read, or do you just skim and run your mouth off?
  • Diversionary tactics, but minor stuff. You still haven't answered the question why contemporary American & European libs are trying to marrying marxism & gayness into a united front.
  • actuality he was an economist
  • This is debatable since he was such an idiot on the subject, but it's not even worth wasting the time on.
  • That's borderline ad hominem. Besides, it's not whether you agree with his opinions that makes him an expert on the issue.
  • Marx wasn't an economic idiot? Ask any Cuban refugee.
  • Do you have the ability to see both sides of an issue? Or are you blinded by your personal beliefs?
  • Certainly. I'm extremely broadminded & flexible. Programmed selling gets tiresome, however. I loose patience with recycled trash that was disposed of decades ago. Rob Smith 13:13, 7 December 2007 (EST)
  • You are smug, and I get the impression you think you are somehow superior. Keep in mind this is supposed to be an academic site, and that you should remove your emotion from your writing. Maybe, you should try going to university... er... college as all y'all call it in the USA.
  • Hmmm, why are you bullying me? You have convinced me of your own superiority to my wretched and genetically inferior miserable existence. Rob Smith 14:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Why did you change my edit?

MY sources were good sources from the Jewish foundation, Guardian and the Britanica while your sources are biased from Orthodox exrimists and from newsources that don't even exist.


And at the same time you keep the part of my text that was critical of the soviety system. Bah, I'll never give this encyclopedia an other shot after this. It just shows that you can't handle anything negative about religion or positive about communism while at the same time take every opportunity to say something bad. You even twisted my own negative clauses to be even more negative to suit your purpous.



and i put the "right" into citation marks because it was so it was written in the constitution. I didn't agree with it.

It was communist bigotry. Rob Smith 16:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Proposed edit of the Joseph McCarthy page

Dear RobSmith,

I notice that you’ve been a primary editor of Joseph McCarthy, so I thought I’d solicit your opinion and help on the portion of the page, pertaining to Ralph Flanders’s role in Condemnation and the Watkins Committee. As I noted on the Talk:Joseph McCarthy#Flanders role in Senate censure, there were some unreferenced passages of questionable provenance. I have since done some research and have provided some proposed text to substitute for the first two paragraphs of the section in question.

I invite you to review the proposed text at User talk:Norwich#Flanders role in Senate censure of Joseph McCarthy and leave feedback on what I’ve proposed before any substitute language is installed in that portion of the McCarthy article.

Sincerely, Norwich 17:33, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Dear RobSmith,

Thank you for your thoughtful input on the above invitation. I'll leave the rest of the McCarthy playing field to those who are more familiar with it. I just wanted to set the record straight on a fellow anti-communist Republican, who reluctantly entered the stage because he felt that a greater menace was looming elsewhere.

I'll proceed with the proposed edit.

Sincerely, Norwich 17:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

wikipedia article

why is the wikipedia article locked for editing? isn't that just as bad as what wikipedia does? SlapHappy 21:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)SlapHappy

Some articles are more prone to vandalism and edit warring than others. While they are few in number, a decision was made at the sysop level to protect them. Editing is still possible, but information for inclusion should be inserted in the talk section and will then be reviewed to see if the addition will be inserted. I hope this helps. Learn together 03:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)
Thanks, LT. The Wikipedia article is linked from the Main Page, and most items linked from the main page, as in Wikipedia, are routinely locked. Rob Smith 15:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You can always make suggestions and point out errors in the Talk page. Leopeo 17:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I just sent you a private email

I just sent you a private email. Conservative 16:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Tito and Yugoslav partisans

After some time I still haven't gotten any response to my posts on Talk:Josip Broz and Talk:Louis Adamic. I still don't know what was I doing wrong all the time so I would appreciate if you were to explain why all my edits there got reverted. Qwertz 10:05, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Political Compass

BTW, what's your result on the Political Compass? --SimonA 16:44, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Che Guevara

Rob, you might like to consider this as an External Link on the Che Guevara page: http://ronaldandcob.com/people_who_wear_che_guevara_tshirts.html CWE 20:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

United States presidential election, 1940

In the above mentioned article, you added

Roosevelt decided that with the support of the Southern states which were congenitally Democratic, the city bosses in the big industrial centers who had been induced to New Dealism by government spending, the labor union vote which had been mobilized under unions that were predominantly political, the votes of the racial and religious groups affected by the World War II, and that immense, new, vital and active army of government bureaucrat payrollees.

in the General Election section. This is not a sentence, just a long compund subject. I am guessing that you were saying that "Roosevelt decided he could get the votes with .... etc.", but I don't want to change your work to mean something you don't. I realize that this was from last August, but I found it while just wandering around, and thought you might want to fix it. Boomcoach 12:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

al-Qaeda

Hi, I noticed that you had unprotected the article earlier this year. Could you either make the change I described here, or unlock the article so I can? Thanks! Dchall1 15:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

RobS has been busy with other matters and hasn't been around much lately. In any case, the article was last protected by DanH, so he'd be the best one to ask. Philip J. Rayment 05:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Images

Hi! I noticed that you added the image on MoveOn.org. I am curious as to the policies regarding image addition. I feel that the McCain article and 2008 election pieces would benefit from more images, but I have never seen a help page with directions. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks!--CTrooper 22:57, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Is it really you

guns, God, and gays? HenryS 17:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Well unless someone has hacked his account it must be! Welcome back Rob. Hope you have sorted out your personal stuff and are able to stick around for a while. BrianCo 17:42, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much. Still wotking 15 hour days right now, but hope to get away for at least an hour a day in the next two months. God bless all. Rob Smith 17:48, 4 September 2008 (EDT)


ATTAC report

I saw that a lot of articles relating to terrorism cited ATTAC report. i looked them up and they seem to be a pretty extremist conspiracy group that makes wild inaccurate claims.for instance, Greenpeace is supervised by Red China? upon further research, i discovered it was you who had cited ATTAC so much. i don't know what the deal is becasue they are extremely unreliable and inaccurate. i suggest that in the pursuit better standards, you don't cite them anymore.

user:davidr

Alger Hiss

Thanks for your kind words, Rob.

crossposted from Talk:Alger Hiss:

This text disappeared:


“ Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. ”

so I removed the quote template. How can we restore this? I must be tired. FOIA 23:59, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

Is he back?

OMG, 15 edits since September! What's going on? --Ed Poor Talk 16:22, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I finally got a few hours per week (I been struggling to save a business during this past year; the facts are, I have created more jobs than General Motors, Chrysler, and Microsoft combined since last fall....). Hope to get back into the swing of things. Rob Smith 16:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)


Welcome back. Many things had happen since you got silent.
Your work was always good... welcome home! --Joaquín Martínez 16:52, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Thank you Thank you. Rob Smith 16:53, 18 June 2009 (EDT)


  • I emailed you about the other. Thanks for the heads up! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:23, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

I am thinking this "strategy" could well deserve its own article, given the number of times (recently) the liberals have been using it. Of course this ties in with the Nazi's, Communists and other leftists throughout the 20th/21st centuries history. Thoughts? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:07, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The same publication has another article on the subject [8]. Rob Smith 18:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Great to see you again

Rob, it's great to "see" you again! Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 13:46, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Thank you! I had to retake a business I sold to avoid the buyers total default. In the process I ended up expanding and pumping more money into it. In fact, during the final quarter of 2008, I created more jobs than General Motors, Chrysler, Microsoft, and Catapiller Tractor combined. When the going gets tough.... Rob Smith 13:59, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Userbox spelling

I believe the spelling on your second userbox should be 'between' rather than 'bewteen' --OscarJ 15:05, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Gracias Senor. Rob Smith 15:26, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Health Bill

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You need to thank Mark Levin for the data and inspiration. --Jpatt 14:10, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Keep pouring it on! You are getting good results at the search engines so far!

I just wanted you to know Conservapedia's search engine rankings for the search communism so far:

  • Bing ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #5
  • Yahoo ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #8
  • Google ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #18

When and if Conservapedia ranks in the Google top 10 for communism you will see significantly more traffic to your communism related articles.

The search communism gets about 1,800 searches a day from the search engines listed above.

Keep your content creation spree up. You are getting results in terms of people reading your content and it will likely increase if you keep it up. I can keep you informed periodically if you wish. conservative 21:14, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

By the way, since atheism/evolution certainly has some association/relation to communism, I am certainly encouraged by your efforts and results as web traffic created by your communism related articles is certainly helpful to the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles. conservative 21:21, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Thank you very much. I hope to write a good definitve entry on Frank Marshall Davis which can be an entry point for the whole Subversion in Government story, inclduing U.S. Peace Council, Alice Palmer, Dohrn, Ayers, WUO, etc. etc. These I'd like to aim for high Google results. Rob Smith 16:03, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

KAL 007

Can we not move it, rather than redirect, so as to keep the entire edit history? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:51, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

You mean change the text where the redirect came from? Rob Smith 20:56, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
No. I totally missed the move log, and just thought it was redirected, then pasted in. Been that kind of day.....accountants. Like Miss Emily Latilla used to say: "Never mind.". --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:22, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

I know you are no fan of socialism. I also think August could be an important month as far as future economic freedom in the USA as Obama does not want to be defeated on the health care issue which will cause him to lose political momentum.

Would you be interested in creating these articles:

Obama admistration deficit spending

Obama administration corporate bailouts

Obama administration fiscal policy

Obama admistration monetary policy

Please let me know if you are interested as your assistance would be appreciated.conservative 04:47, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

I can do some input, but I'm trying to get Frank Marshall Davis integrated into all the old CPUSA history, then I have to get Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and the WUO all updated cause now it appears they are even larger parts of American history than the sad chapters they wrote several decades ago; I'm about a year behind on all this, but more people are becoming interested everyday in Obama's communist roots & agenda, it would appear. So it even more relevant today than a year ago. Rob Smith 12:53, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

Orwell on terminology

  • The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

Thanks for cluing me in, Rob. We have a long row to hoe if we want to stop toeing the Liberal line. --Ed Poor Talk 10:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Alger Hiss

  • Thanks for uploading the UN Yalta image, Rob, but CP can't seem to make thumbnails out of gifs. Can you convert it to jpg or png? Thanks again. FOIA 20:07, 24 September 2009 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobSmith"
Personal tools