Tim, I reverted the main page back to include the Christmas message. There are twelve days of Christmas, not just one! --Aschlafly 19:20, 30 December 2006 (EST)
Tim, I disagree with your change on the page count. The study pages are very useful and should qualify towards page count. For example, a page of what are the most important Modern Terms beginning in "M" is a valuable (and even debatable) page that should count towards the total. I'm reverting the page back. Feel free to take a vote on this if you like. --Aschlafly 00:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Tim, I've responded to your counterargument by creating this as a debate topic: Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count? Feel free to respond there! --Aschlafly 17:25, 5 January 2007 (EST)
Tim, great new entries! --Aschlafly 21:33, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Superb entries on the logo and checks and balances! --Aschlafly 00:04, 7 January 2007 (EST)
Tim: "separation" is the correct spelling. Thanks in advance for correcting this.--Aschlafly 14:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
Great addition to the entry on positive statements, Tim! --Aschlafly 19:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Sign your edits
tim, you need to sign your edits (btw it will sign your edits for you if you just put this at the end of your post, ~~~~PhilipB 17:33, 7 January 2007 (EST)
Math on page counts
Tim, how do you subtract 350 from the new entries but add only 150 to the term list count? Or put another way, when the total page count is about 3500, how is it that your count adds up to only 3250??? --Aschlafly 21:42, 9 February 2007 (EST)
Tim, there are 3521 total pages. Your modification seems off by several hundred. My number was roughly correct.--Aschlafly 23:10, 9 February 2007 (EST)
Tim, for page count click on "oldest pages" (under "more" category of Special Pages) and then page through the list until you get to the end. There are 3522 now, which means even if you are right that there are 350 index pages (whcih seems high), there would still be nearly 3200 entries.--Aschlafly 23:33, 9 February 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure. I tried playing around with it a little bit but was not succesful. There may be some template complication that I'm not aware of. JoshuaZ 00:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
Benjamin Franklin and homeschooling
He was homeschooled and at the time he was homeschooled he was Christian. So it might make sense to have him on the list. JoshuaZ 11:40, 12 February 2007 (EST)
One of the original points of Conservapedia was to have a wiki that Christian homeschooled students could edit without them being exposed to anything their parents didn't want them exposed to. As I understand, a substantial number of edits have come from middle schoolers who have some connected to A Schlafly. JoshuaZ 11:26, 14 February 2007 (EST)
A: Actually conservapedia was not started to "have a wiki that Christian homeschooled students could edit without them being exposed to anything their parents didn't want them exposed to." It was started to have an encyclopedic website (it actually didn't start as a wiki) that did not have the liberal bias of wikipedia. B: The Users of Conservapedia are not limited to the students of A Schlafly, and most of the students are highschoolers. --CPAdmin1 11:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)
W on W
Willy on Wheels is a name used originally by an earlier Wikipedia vandal. Since then, Wiki vandalizers have used it or variants thereof in a copycat fashion. I would recommend blocking the user. JoshuaZ 14:30, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Bias in Wikipedia
Tim, your repeated edits on Bias in Wikipedia removed much of my work. My work was completely factual and useful to the reader. Several of your edits involved issues discussed among several people. In the future, on such an important page, please propose such changes on the Talk page before making them. The removal of factual information is disfavored on Conservapedia.
I've locked the page to reflect the importance of it. Again, please discuss before removing factual information from such an important page.--Aschlafly 17:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)
We can't have pages from creationwiki posted here. Creationwiki is under the GFDL liscence and we are not. To put them here without also GFDLing our material constitutes a massive copyright breach. JoshuaZ 23:44, 5 March 2007 (EST)
After looking through this users contributions I haven't found anything obscene. I am going to unblock them, therefore Geo. 00:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- Disregard the above. Geo. 01:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Why did you threaten to block my messages?
- Update: Nematocyte and I have come to some kind of truce. I apologize for yelling for an admin too soon. I've had to learn how to negotiate. In future, I won't bother you with things like this until negotiations have failed.--TerryH 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Ray did not want to play ball. No discussion was really happening
Ray did not want to play ball. No discussion was really happening. Ray was not specific in his criticisms. I did encourage Ray just now to incorporate some of his "contradiction in terms" material in regards to theistic evolution. Conservative 00:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
As to what it's about, you might be more likely to get a response if you ask on User talk:TimothyR's talk page?
I take it to be a recipe. It correlates well with other recipes for cheesy potatoes on the Internet.
I take it that TimothyR thinks he's pretty good at making them, likes them, and wishes to share his enthusiasm. I think it's intended to be a good-faith, if frivolous contribution, by someone who wanted to add an article and didn't feel like working too hard.
I made some edits to the article because I wanted to be encouraging. From the form of his name I'm guessing he's one of the homeschoolers, and I like to see them participating. On the whole, articles on cheesy potatoes are not high on the list of things Conservapedia really needs, of course... Dpbsmith 22:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Fox News article
You kept a few grammar edits, but butchered my edits which were narrowly tailored to remove blatant bias from the article. I intend to return the article to its unbiased state as I edited it.
However, first, I'm curious as to how you do NOT see a bias in the way the Fox News article is right now. Perhaps you could explain it to me, but "Many Fox News hosts, believe this is because they show both sides of the issues and refuse to viciously attack George W. Bush or the Iraq War" seems pretty biased to me... especially since it has no citation.
- Why isn't it biased? Here, I'll bear the burden of proof by explaining my position. "Because they show both sides" is an uncited personal opinion. "Viciously attack" is an emotive phrase that imports a moral judgment. It's wrong, it's not what this page is supposed to be about.
Hi, not sure if you're watching Template:Block, but I made a suggestion to improve it on its Talk page. I would've changed it myself, but since you're the guy who's currently using it, I didn't want to mess with your way. :) --Sid 3050 07:55, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I'd suggest adding something to the template that shows the offending diff. In some cases it's hard to know what is allowed here and what's not. Some admins are very trigger happy with the block, while others aren't and I don't want to end up on the wrong end of the barrel by accident. Jrssr5 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I know, but it was a glaring vandal act and he would have just ignored the warning. I got ya though ;)--Elamdri 19:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
how come bce isnt allowed?
how come bce isnt allowed?
Where does it say on Andrew's page he approved a 3-day ban? It says he considered the issue finished.--Dave3172 22:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
He Said: We don't generally block for ideological reasons. But if the pollution of one's talk page with never-ending rants rises to an intolerable level, then temporary blocking is appropriate. Thanks. --CPAdmin1 22:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Tim, I understand that. But in reference to Ames, if you re-read the paragraph, he considered this particular time finished. By all means, if he does it again, block him. But right now you're punishing him twice for the same crime, which wasn't that bad to begin with.--Dave3172 22:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Tim, AmesG still blocked beyond the 3 days and I'd didn't want to lift it without asking you first. What should we do? RobS 10:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You changed "the Bible" to "Saint Paul" when "the Bible" was Correct --CPAdmin1 22:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so I can put "women" back in there? In my studies, it was actually St. Paul who said this, but if that bugs, I can leave it out! Sedge
St. Paul Said it in the bible. the bible generally is given greater authority than St. Paul so the bible would be better in that situation. --CPAdmin1 22:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Why did you ban Dinosaurus, when it is Cwilson who was clearly vandalizing the page?ColemanFrancis 17:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Why I banned user God is Great.
Here is why I banned user:God is Great. Take a look at the vandalism he did to the Wikipedia article. I didn't do it out of anger. I did it because it was a clear case of vandalism. Conservative 21:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
- But, in fairness, he was agreeing with you? Although his comment was pretty silly, I think we need to understand that many views are represented here, and the meat of his point was well made, don't you think? I mean, many of us DO support you and your views, Conservative. ....Wonders.
We have too much vandalsim to be soft on it. We don't need vandals
We have too much vandalism to be soft on it. We don't need vandals. It is no big deal to give them a permanent ban. I think vandalism is a very serious offense. It ruins an encyclopedia. Plus vandalism is foolish behavior and I don't think we need to suffer fools. Conservative 21:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Hi. Tim. I was wondering why you deleted my article on Prescott Bush, the President's grandfather.
Why are liberal users allowed on this site? They're just wasting their time; and taking up precious space with their ridiculous whining. Either we need to block new accounts, or block all the liberal users. And how come we're always the first to leave debates? It seems they always have to win. Scorpiontalk 08:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
- Denny Crane.-AmesG 08:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT) (haha jk)
A pretty long list of criteria to regulate who's allowed... just how close to the border can you be and still be allowed to edit... What 08:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, this lecture on the German Reformation is already available on Conservapedia -- it's a lecture, not part of a well-edited entry on Germany. Why should an article on Germany be 70% about one historical event? The same would apply for a ten-paragraph section about WWII or the German Olympics or any other thing which should instead be covered in a separate entry. Boethius 11:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi… Tim, is it?
for your help in identifying liberals worth watching! Richard 22:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)