User talk:Ymmotrojam

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Conservapedia! We can certainly use your help. I would suggest contacting User:Aschlafly or sending an email to For the time being, the largest tasks are catching vandals and cleaning up the vandalism. Please report all vandalism to Conservapedia:Abuse. Thank you! ~ SharonS Talk! 21:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking more along the lines of preventing vandalism in the first place. There is some good software to help with this that I use on my websites. --Ymmotrojam 21:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
That would be great! User:PhilipB knows much more than me about that sort of stuff. ~ SharonS Talk! 21:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I have removed the "white pride" image. Thank you for the heads up.--Elamdri 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)



Welcome as a SYSOP/admin! You can now block users who post obscenity or vandalism (both should be blocked immediately, and for infinite duration), and also warn or impose temporary blocks for things like silliness or inappropriate edits. We do not block based on ideology, however. Be careful that some silliness may be a young person, such as the entry on Cheesy Potatoes, and such user should be encouraged rather than scolded. Most silliness, unfortunately, is by adults however. Anyway, welcome!--Aschlafly 17:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

thanks. I'll try to use the privilege respectfully. --Ymmotrojam 17:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Great block. You've got the right idea. 95% of the time the user id (e.g., "Thumper") is a give-away as to the person's intentions.--Aschlafly 17:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


I'm taking serious exception to Evolutionism. It's pretty much a bash of evolutionists, uncited, and factually inaccurate. Care to explain why you think it should stay? --Hojimachongtalk 01:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Uncited, yes, but it's not disrespectful. In fact I've specifically said that Creationism has some of the same foundational things. Maybe you just don't like it because you disagree. --Ymmotrojam 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Another thing, I separated between the scientific theory of evolution and Evolutionism. One is a ideology, and the other is scientific theory. in that regard there is no reason for it to be deleted. --Ymmotrojam 01:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It's been deleted again, by another sysop. Regardless, the article should definitely be in a better state if you recreate (i.e., not representing your personal view of Christianity, because other Christians may accept evolution differently, and not labelling it as a "religion", because it could not, by any means, be construed as something even remotely close to religion. It is by definition the opposite of religion, which is the belief in the supernatural. Science is hardly supernatural). --Hojimachongtalk 01:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You're still misunderstanding the point of the article. The point was not to attack science. The point was not to attack anything. The point was to document the facts of evolutionism. I'm not labeling the science of evolution a religion, I'm labeling evolutionism a religion. There's a subtlety there that I think you're missing or I'm not explaining very well. --Ymmotrojam 01:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The fundamental problem is that there is no such religion. --Horace 01:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Let's check the dictionary definition of religion: " (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural" (Webster). Science is the study of natural truths, based on scientific facts. Anything "believing" in science cannot be defined as a religion, because it's not (And no, Scientology doesn't count, because it's a highly fantasized fairy tale about things that don't even relate to science). --Hojimachongtalk 01:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
That's where I agree, I never said science was the religion, or that you have to believe in science. What I'm saying is that there is something that comes before science... a presupposition. And that presupposition affects the viewing of the science. How that statement is unscholarly, I don't know. --Ymmotrojam 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
This statement is unscholarly because previously on this same page you said "I'm labeling evolutionism a religion" when it is clearly not "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." It is, in fact, quite the opposite as Hojimachong has stated. There is no belief in the supernatural or in God in evolutionism, therefore it cannot be a religion. That is factual. "Worldview" is not equivalent to Religion. --Dikaiosune 1:41 CST 19 March 2007
Okay, I was mixing terms a bit. But you yourself do seem to concede (atleast in implication), in the comment you just made, atleast that it is a worldview. Ultimately, what I'm trying to get at is the idea of presupposition. And maybe I can reword the article in that regard. But something tells me you guys don't even want to think about anything close to it. I'll admit, this way of thinking is not politically correct, but I try not to live in a PC way ;-) --Ymmotrojam 01:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not so much that the article is politically incorrect. It is rather that the article is really just your position on the issue and is not an encyclopedic article. --Horace 01:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Is it worth noting that most evolutionists identify themselves as atheists (meaning lack of religion)? I'm not going to find a source, because I think you know this, but if you like, look one up yourself or ask me to find one. Just worth noting. --Hojimachongtalk 01:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
What you are saying is that a non-belief in a god is just as much an act of faith as a belief in a god. That is, of course, a hotly contested view. You will, no doubt, be aware of Betrand Russell's teapot that orbits on the other side of the sun and the Flying Spagetti Monster. In any case, that appears to be your point. You then appear to go on to connect that atheistic view with evolution and somehow conclude that the connection constitutes a religion. I suggest that there is a step or two missing in that proposition somewhere. --Horace 01:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, just out of curiosity, what is that missing proposition? --Ymmotrojam 01:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Why does atheism plus a belief in evolution add up to a new religion? What about atheism plus a belief in Lamarkism? Is that a new religion too? --Horace 01:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Uncreative Spam or The Unofficial Conservapedia Welcome Wagon

Just look at the recent changes page.NSmyth18:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What is your username at CreationWiki?

What is your username at CreationWiki? I created a bunch of material at CreationWiki. Conservative 19:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

tmajor --Ymmotrojam 19:45, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Stub2 Deleted

The webmaster deleted the stub2 template and now we have a ton of pages siting around with a broken template. I have been fixing them, but I'm tired and need sleep, could you help when you log on. All the pages with broken links can be found here:

(Issue has been fixed via Template Redirect.) --Sid 3050 08:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Hey! Do you know how to edit the colors in UBXs (Userboxes)? Here's a link to a site with the hexadecimal color codes so you can edit the colors of any UBXs you create. Have fun and ask if you need any help. ColinRtalk 02:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, you know you can edit the images in the userboxes, right? All you have to do is upload an image and replace the link. ColinRtalk 02:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I know. Just been putting in the text I wanted, then they can be edited later ;-). Thanks though. --Ymmotrojam 02:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
No probs. ColinRtalk 02:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy

There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a proposed block policy Tell me what you think. --CPAdmin1 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 00:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop Pledge
As a Conservapedia Sysop, I will NEVER ARBITRARILY block anyone who is not in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments or related CP Guidelines.

Edits to Date of Creation

Hi. I've reverted the edits to Date of Creation for the following reasons:

  • "Regius" was correct.
  • The bit about the secular age for the Earth should be mentioned, I believe. It had been changed to read as a fact by another editor, but in its earlier form I don't see that it should be a problem. Yes, it is unreferenced, but then so was much that you left in there. Also, I doubt that there's much contention that that age is what the secular view is.
  • Personally, I think it's better to not have large paragraphs all in one edit line. It makes diffs easier to follow if they are separate, and makes no difference to the generated page.
  • I don't know if there is a preference here for small text in references section, but it is done in places, and without it the references section can get unnecessarily large.

If there's other changes you did that I missed, sorry. But as that was all I could see, the simplest thing seemed to be to simply revert.

Philip J. Rayment 12:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. Yeah, never seen the term regius before ;-). Should have dictionaried it... hehe, can that be a verb? Also, the only reason I removed the spaces is that it wasn't affecting the visual appearance of the document anyways... they were still being rendered as all one paragraph. Also, it's okay to have that secular statement in there, but 1) is the article about "Creation" or when the world started... in other words, "when the world started" meaning not everything coming into existence in the Christian sense, but simply the earth coming into existence as a separate starting point than the rest of the universe. Put simply, the evolutionary starting point? There's a huge difference. Now there could be a separate article about the dating of the theory of evolution. In other words, how does it really apply, if the article is about biblical creation dating? Also, the bible is proven accurate anyways, so that would be the most reliable dating. In any case, it should not claim accuracy. --Ymmotrojam 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
The fact that separating the lines don't affect the visual appearance was my argument for having them separate! Considering that it can also help with comparisons/diffs.
As for what the article is about, I suppose that the way I was thinking was that the word "creation" has a meaning (among other meanings) of "everything that exists anywhere". It doesn't have to just refer to Creation as described in the Bible. Admittedly that might be a bit forced in the title "Date of creation", which does seem to refer to an event, not "everything". I'll think more about that one.
Philip J. Rayment 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

US Army

I see you deleted the page the GOPDUDE put up. Good idea to block as well. While you were deleting and blocking I put a short US Army page that reflects conservative values a little better. I also notice from your user page that you have some Bible background. If you get time, you might want to look at the Conservapedia page on Deuteronomy and replace that with something reasonable. I don't have time to spend alot of time editing and didn't want to replace that trash with something that doesn't do justice to God's Word. Although, just deleting might be better than what is there now. What do you think? --HSDad 16:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I haven't studied Deuteronomy extensively, but that was definitely not worth on being an article. I just replaced it with stub material. --Ymmotrojam 17:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Help Requested

I've been editing the article on Geocentric theory but my work is repeatedly being deleted and reverted, and I and my views have been insulted several times on the discussion page there. Please could you give me some advice and assistance. Thanks Mmeelliissssaa 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I did not reply sooner. I have been in the midst of final exams. I will check what the issue was if it is still relevant in the next few days. --Ymmotrojam 17:57, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

New American Standard Version

Hi what's your intention with this article? The base article is essentially factual. Hannibal ad portas 13:15, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The base version is not correct. The NASB was developed by the Lockman foundation. --Ymmotrojam 13:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Funny I thought it was developed by a committee of the Catholic Church.[1] Hannibal ad portas 13:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Just deleting the article is a very arbitrary way of resolving this.Hannibal ad portas 13:35, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I think what we're seeing is two very similar titles for Bible versions. One is the New American Bible (NAB) developed by some Catholics, and the NAS or NASB which is developed by the Lockman Foundation. --Ymmotrojam 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Apologies, I looked up your Lockman link and realised we were talking about different Bibles. I think the original article creator may have had the same problem. It's possibly a confusion that is shared by many people (until they actually have a copy of the different Bibles in their hands). Hannibal ad portas 13:44, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Great Redirect

Great redirect on Son of God!!! Also, by the way, Hannibal left in a huff unrelated to his dispute with you above. His user id. means "Hannibal (the enemy) at our Gates!!! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:01, 2 June 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the minor additions to that article. If we can keep it in line with what the Bible says, then it would be a big blessing for our editors as well as vistors to the site. Karajou 01:26, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Your templates

Hello Ymmotrojam.

You were the creator of the {{Trinity}} template, and perhaps others also. Since late May 2007, Conservapedia requires that all templates be properly documented. Please see Creating templates for instructions on this. If the template(s) are not documented, they will be deleted. Thank you for your co-operation in this.

Alternatively, if a particular template is no longer required, please delete it.
Thanks for that.

Also, I see that you've created a template {{Clearboth}}. However, a template with this function already exists ({{clear}}). Philip J. Rayment 06:32, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for letting me know :-). It's an easy habit to fall into, to just create something for one's own purposes and forget you're in a community. I redirected the {{clearboth}} to {{clear}} and will document the {{trinity}} template. --Ymmotrojam 06:40, 2 June 2007 (EDT)


Sorry, you undid the vandalism while I waited for the page to load, and of course by the time my undo went through, you had already changed it. I won't undo that edit, I'll leave it for you or TK File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 06:17, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

That's some long page loading! Our edits were 12 minutes apart. ;-). No prob though. --Ymmotrojam 06:24, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I went away and brewed coffee :/ File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 07:08, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Double Redirects

Thanks for taking care of those. DanH 18:18, 3 June 2007 (EDT)


removed myself. I've been active And how! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for the reminder. NitramNos 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

putting your material in a place where it will be more read

I eliminated the exact duplicate material in the articles on creationism and young earth creationism that was in the the theory of evolution article. I did this to avoid the duplicate content penalty that the search engines impose. However, this made the young earth creationism mighty sparse. I also thought your Arguments for a recent creation article was quite good although it could be expanded. However, it wasn't getting many views. Thus I decided to merge it with young earth creationism to beef up that article and to give your material more views. Conservative 22:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks and some problems


I would like to thank your for helping out with the Young earth creationism article. Your help is much appreciated.

However, there are two problems with the changes you introduced to the Young earth creationism article and they have to do with Conservapedia policy and how search engines rank webpages. Specifically, the material you introduced violates the Conservapedia commandments (you cannot cite a wiki). In addition, I believe you introduced material which is causing us to be penalized by the search engines for this article which I will explain later in this post.

Now with the aforementioned said, I wanted to let you know that the Young earth creationism article is currently ranked number 11 by for the category of "Young earth creationism". [2] The problem is that if you are not in the top 5 you lose out on the lion's share of web traffic for an article. I couldn't figure out why our article did not move into the the top five until today. I think it is because a duplicate content penalty is being assessed by the search engines (see: and ). A duplicate content penalty is assessed if a article is 17% or more similar to another webpage. Now I noticed you have a lot of quotations to a CreationWiki article in the Conservapedia Young earth creationism article. There are two problems with this. First, as I noted before, the conservapedia commandments state that you cannot cite a wiki. So the material has to be changed. Secondly, the large use of quotations from the CreationWiki article in regards to the Young earth creationism article I believe is causing the duplicate content penalty to be assessed. Could you please substantially change the wording in regards to the material quoted from CreationWiki and please cite non-wiki sources?

I do think that the material was needed and greatly helpful in terms of info and I thank you once again, however, I would like the young earth creationism article to be read by a lot more people and for it to be in compliance with the Conservapedia Commandments. --Conservative 18:19, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm having trouble finding that rule on the Commandments page. Where else would something like this be listed? Can you point it out please. Btw, there is a correct way to cite a wiki, and that is by citing the particular revision that you saw when you viewed that page. It would be no different than viewing any other internet page, and citing that page and the date you viewed it. Also, I would argue that CreationWiki is different from other wikis, because it is closed to the public. They have more control over their content, so it wouldn't be like citing wikipedia or something, where anyone can edit it. --Ymmotrojam 21:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
Ymmotrojam, let me elaborate on my last post in order to make my last post more helpful. Conservapedia's Manual of Style is very explicit in regards to not using a wiki as a source. Conservapedia's Manual of Style states: "Please do not cite wikis as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki." [3] The Conservapedia Commandments are less explicit and it states in a footnote regarding sources: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Now while I have been tempted to use well cited material at CreationWiki that cite authorative sources that I have personally created, I refrain from doing so. I do it because it is against Conservapedia rules and I realize the rationale for the rule for various reasons. Now here is some encouraging news that perhaps you may find exciting. The search term Theory of evolution in regards to Google is a fairly popular search term (see: ). Out of the 107,000,000 articles for the search term "theory of evolution" Conservapedia ranks #30 and I expect it to climb. Now the search term "Young earth creationism" is somewhat less popular but there is more opportunity because we face less competition. In other words, I think you changing the material as per the Conservapedia rules, could very well result in the article popping into the top 5 articles for the Google search phrase "young earth earth creationism". Now Glenn Morton's article against "young earth creationism" (see: ) is ranked #4 by Google and in the last 10 years it has gotten about 914,000 views (I think about a month ago it was ranked #6 by google). So perhaps you changing the material you added to the young earth creationism article could result in Conservapedia getting about 500,000 - 1,000,000 extra views a decade and that is assuming that Glenn Morton's counter is working properly and it might not be. Right now, we bouncing between #10 and #11 on the term "young earth creationism" and being #11 is not very good. I don't think that most people will look at the second page of search results to find our article. Now I suggest changing the material in such a way to optimize search engine results and in a way that would be helpful to readers. I suggest using several sources instead of relying merely on one or two articles in regards to changing the CreationWiki cited material. Based on my experience, this will reduce your material's chance of being 17% or more similar to another webpage (duplicate content search engine penalty) and give your readers the opportunity to have more sources at their disposal. There are lots of good YEC articles on the net so I don't think this should pose a problem. Conservative 18:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
WOW! The theory of evolution has been getting about 400-500 views day. Yesterday it got 3,000 views a day. That is quite a one day jump! I really could use your help with the changes to the Young Earth Creationism article. I made some changes in other Conservapedia articles so the Young Earth Creationism article will hopefully be getting more traffic. Conservative 22:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

New User Requests Some Help

Dear Tom, I am new to Conservapedia and have been trying to edit some articles. I was wondering whether it would be possible to upload photos, for example, I am trying to upload the Chechen flag on Chechnya. I was wondering if you could give me some advice as to do this. God bless you! --Samian 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref Lists

Tom, some of those pages are too large to handle the extra formatting and history. I added it to McCarthy, and it totally froze it up. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 19:54, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, the McCarthy page is pretty unique in that it has some of the largest references (most text on average in each reference). I would say someone needs to look into that and see if we are being a little too excessive on the refs/notes. Or maybe that article needs to be broken into smaller sections... I don't know. --Ymmotrojam 19:58, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Ed mentioned transclusion? Splitting it into two you know how to do that? Or should be treat it like the main page, and put it into templates for each section, including the refs? What say you? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:05, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Minor question

Do you believe that every single word is true in the bible? --Sachaztan 21:08, 17 August 2007 (EDT)


Hi, I have a quick formatting question: How do you post something as "nowiki"? DanH 03:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Simply place whatever you would like to not be wikified between <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Is that what you wanted? --Ymmotrojam 03:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
That's it! Thanks. DanH 03:39, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I thought you might like this....

Evolution - A Fairy Tale For Grownups

Conservative 21:24, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

Please don't delete and reset those articles. Will send you private email

Please don't delete and reset those articles. Will send you private email. Conservative 19:51, 1 December 2007 (EST)

atheist quotes

some of the quotes in the atheists quotes article are taken from previous portions of the atheism article. Therefore, using the atheist quotes article to create that section causes duplication. That is why I reverted your edit. I wanted to explain my reversion as I did not want to cause offense. Conservative 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

For example, the prophet david quote gets duplicated. Conservative 23:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I wasn't aware of that :-). Maybe we could just include a few quotes then? I don't see any point in including most if not all the quotes. Kind of defeats the purpose of having another page. --Ymmotrojam 23:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I apologize for the swift reversion - I just notice quickly when sysop edits get reverted. DanH 00:02, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
The atheists rant and rave regarding the quotes and there is no comprehensive list of anti-atheism quotes on the internet. I do believe that providing unique content is a public service plus the search engines like unique content. In addition, people are more likely to go to a web resource that has unique material that they cannot find elsewhere and refer people to it as well. Please keep the quotes. Conservative 00:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Whatever you want to do is fine by me. :-) --Ymmotrojam 00:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I sent you a email

I just sent you an email. Conservative 19:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I sent you a second email

I sent you a second email. 19:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Sent you a third email

i sent you a third email. Conservative 19:29, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Going to be soon wanted to email back and forth a bit

Dear Ymmotrojam,

Going to be soon wanted to email back and forth a bit before retiring. I will be sending you a email soon. Conservative 22:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


Would you mind unprotecting this page, so I can create an actual article about the Scientologist belief in thetans?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Unblocked --Ymmotrojam 17:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Much obliged.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

to: Ymmotrojam

I just IMed you. Conservative 17:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Math fixed

The math is working properly now. Thanks for the heads-up! CPWebmaster 16:07, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

locked article

You have locked the article "Sodomy" (I can see why for obvious reasons) but the article is on the wanted pages, so I don't know if it is an article that then should be put on this site. If so, should it be unblocked? --ITSAMEMARIO 19:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

I did that in a spree of deletions and protections. I was not the original person to make the call. I just upgraded the method of protecting certain articles to a newer method supplied by the software upgrade we had recently. For decisions like this, I would refer you to User talk:Aschlafly. --Ymmotrojam 19:42, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

double link

Hi Ymmotrojam. I noticed that Young_Earth_Creationism and Young_Earth_creationism (small c) are duplicates. It seems like a good idea to rename the last one YEC or something of that nature. Just a suggestion and thanks so much for all the great and necessary work you do. I'm a YEC and would love to help with content if you need. Just don't want to make any changes but thought I should bring it to your attention. --Irpw

The small "c" one is a redirect. Thanks for the comments though. --Ymmotrojam 21:24, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
you're welcome - just thought it looks weird on the "all pages" index

WikiProject idea

I totally agree with the wikiproject idea i think Conservapedia should use Project: as a prefix, like this Project:Religion, Project:Europe, etc. -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't know if it can use the "Project" namespace, as that is built into MediaWiki and automatically links to the "Conservapedia" namespace when you make links like that. --Ymmotrojam 01:43, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

How about Proj: or Prj: -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

How about Prj:Religion, Prj:Politics, Prj:History, Prj:Geography, etc. ?-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not really sure that this is something that needs a namespace. Wikipedia has managed it quite well without using another custom namespace. --Ymmotrojam 11:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Help with a protected page, please

I've found a mistake in the In The News section but I can't edit it. There is a news item further down which says "Britain, with its atheistic schools, now leads the EU in teen drunkenness". In actual fact Britain has many religious schools, run by the Church of England, and does not prohibit religious activity in public schools. This contrasts with several other countries in the EU, including France, where the school system is explicitly secular and religious activity is forbidden.

I wonder if you could help out by either unprotecting the page or making the edit yourself.Daphnea 15:17, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Protected Debate Page

I noticed that a debate about God intending for us to develop the theory of evolution was deleted and protected. Was there a specific reason for this that was not ideological? --IlTrovatore 23:24, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate the concern. Any pages that I have been deleting and protecting thus far have only been those in which were already essentially deleted and redirected to Conservapedia:Deletedpage. I am not necessarily taking a position on whether any of those pages should exist or not, but simply updating what was already done to a newer format which the software allows. Please direct these types of content questions to User talk:Aschlafly‎. Thanks. --Ymmotrojam 00:19, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Wikipedians

Hi, when you get the time, could you please review my comments at Talk:List of liberal Wikipedians. Thanks --J00ni 13:30, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Not only was the article not even improving because I had it locked, it was probably an over-generalization without much support. --Ymmotrojam 13:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)


Why have you blocked to creation of a page about this wiki? Whilst you may not agree with all of what it says (I certainly don't) it is intelligent and contains quite a lot of legitimate criticism, which should not be censored. Thanks. --Trinity123

wanted pages

changes this to be more general . I am going through wanted pages and have encountered several that you have locked . Could you unlock them so I can create them , or remove them from wanted pages if they are banned for some reason. I can create them in another place for approval if needed , I just need advice on how . Masochism , incest, and a few others. I dont plan on being extensive , just a basic dictionery meaning . Regards Markr 16:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Happy New Year, Tom!

Glory to God in highest heaven,
Who unto man His Son hath given;
While angels sing with tender mirth,
A glad new year to all the earth.
~Martin Luther

--₮K/Talk! 23:41, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Final Fantasy?

Hey, whats up? i was just wondering why you deleted the Final Fantasy series page? I was working on all the series stuff and it was just gone. Conservapedia's info on video games and almost anything is like barely skin on a skeleton, is Final Fantasy evil that i should not make pages on it? is Conservapedia supposed to be a complete re-do of Wikipedia or just politically a re-do? help me out here, if this is supposed to be the Conservative's Wikipedia, then lets do it! can i get back to making my game pages now? Leonhart178 15:29, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Personal tools