User talk:CPalmer

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive: 2008 | Jan-Apr 2009 | May-Dec 2009

Basic rights only

12:14, 23 January 2008 LowKey (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LowKey (talk)

Added. Congratulations to you!--CPalmer 11:56, 9 April 2010 (EDT)


Thanks for adding categories to some of my entries (Urim and Thummim, Mary Celeste). I seem to have a mental block about creating categories; I constantly forget to do it. EMorris 15:55, 8 February 2011 (EST)

No problem, Morris!--CPalmer 11:14, 17 June 2011 (EDT)


Thanks for doing all the work on cats and stuff.--JamesWilson 10:10, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

No problem - thank you for noticing. There are still just under 1000 uncategorised pages, so there's plenty more to do.--CPalmer 11:20, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Don't worry. I may not have the time I did 2 years or so ago, but I can help with those categories. WesleySHello! 14:11, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I just wanted to give you kudos too for all the work you've been doing in adding the cats! Great job! --SharonW 12:54, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for your kind words, though of course my slow, steady progress is its own reward.--CPalmer 08:34, 12 August 2011 (EDT)


Hi! What's wrong with it? It's the Italian for "God is abundance", isn't it? Is there a word problem? --Dioporco 11:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

I think it means "God pig". So you can see why I thought it was blasphemous. "Porco" certainly means "pig" - perhaps someone has been having a joke at your expense?--CPalmer 11:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the re-add

Thanks for re-adding me to your accursed list...:) WesleySHello! 09:45, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Granted extra privileges

Your account has been granted the extra privileges of blocking rights and SkipCatcha. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 10:29, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks! I'll try and put them to good use.--CPalmer 10:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Congrats! I guess you're not the fourth longest-running basic rights user anymore.--JamesWilson 10:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
No, that honour will pass to someone else.--CPalmer 11:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

You broke your record, but congrats! RE emails - I created a CP only email and posted the address on my user page. That way, if anyone wants to get a hold of me they can. --SharonW 11:07, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Working together

Thanks for the cats and links to Role 3. --Ed Poor Talk 12:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

No problem. Good work creating the content, which is the greater part of the work.--CPalmer 12:36, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Great block!

Great block!--Andy Schlafly 12:05, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Thank you! It seemed quite a clear-cut case.--CPalmer 12:16, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Comment erroneously posted on main user page

You know that Benp has now quit? --NickCope 12:17, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the list. I still like him, and he will remain there until I am inspired to add other people. Of course, if he is still absent the next time I make an addition, that will count against him and he may be in line for removal!--CPalmer 12:35, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
And now it seems that you yoruself are no longer with us. Sic transit.--CPalmer 08:25, 12 October 2011 (EDT)


Hi CPalmer. I posted a comment on this talk page because I'm worried that user might be a spam program trying to piggyback off the site to get hits to the advertising link he posted on his user page. See my comment for the details. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 08:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I see what you are saying but as far as I know, there is no rule against posting links on one's user page. If the user were to start spamming on other pages, that would certainly be unacceptable.--CPalmer 08:56, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
My only concern would be that a search engine would index it, see that the exact same content has been posted elsewhere, and flag this site as a spam site (or at least a site where spammers have free reign). Yes, it's not fair, but I've read about Google's PageRank algorithm taking similar procedures to protect against malware and JavaScript vulnerabilities that edit page content. Kevin Davis Talk 12:38, 14 October 2011 (EDT)


Are you "Dr. Pal" from the old days? :-) --Ed Poor Talk 09:50, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

No - I don't know a Dr Pal. I've always been CPalmer.--CPalmer 09:51, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, I guess I was thinking of "PalMD". --Ed Poor Talk 14:31, 14 October 2011 (EDT)


Kudos: That was a herculean task! AugustO 09:19, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks! Though technically I think it is a Sisyphean task, since people do keep on creating new pages...--CPalmer 10:40, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks for the cat. Don't kill it! --Ed Poor Talk 21:39, 21 November 2011 (EST)

Talk page fix

Thanks for reverting the code breakage on my page; I had undone the problem on Mr. Schlafly's page, but I could not block the troublesome user so he was free to continuing breaking pages. Thanks for the help! Kevin Davis Talk 08:51, 22 November 2011 (EST)

You're welcome

You're welcome re: the promotion - it is well-deserved!--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Thanks again!--CPalmer 10:28, 23 March 2012 (EDT)

Wikipedia independent thought/hearsay

Wikipedia...intelligent thought? Surely that is a joke! :)--James Wilson 11:45, 13 April 2012 (EDT)

No hearsay template

Your "no hearsay" template is very interesting!--Andy Schlafly 10:28, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

Thanks - I haven't added it to any articles as yet but I think it's something that could be useful here, either for essays or for sections of articles that go against prevailing online consensuses. Just because a reference can't be found for something doesn't mean it's not true - and any original insight will by definition be impossible to find a reference for.--CPalmer 10:45, 16 April 2012 (EDT)

Template quotes

Thanks for categorizing my category - it's the first one I created on this wiki, I think.

I tried to identify some of the quotes, which isn't easy: the names are quite arbitrary. I hope that User:Ed Poor will be able to spot them all. When the quotes are categorized, I think the best thing will be to have a list of their contents, too - I'm not sure whether this can be done on the page of the category itself or has to be done separately.

Another improvement would be a more unified look of the quotes and their sources - that is something to be left for User:Ed Poor, too.

AugustO 04:42, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

That's no problem. One of the things I do here is try to keep control of the number of uncategorized categories - currently below 50, I believe, which is manageable.
On the other hand, this quotes issue led me to start looking around at templates and there are an absolute mountain of those that have no categories as yet. Any categories that get added as a result of this tidying up of quotes will be a very welcome drop in that ocean, apart from any other benefits, so thank you. You are doing good work!--CPalmer 05:37, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks! AugustO 06:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

Joke sports

It seems to me you're expending a lot of "unnecessary effort" to include as many sports as you can in the list, and to disparage the efforts of the athletes who train in these sports. Why? SharonW 12:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Not so - not at all. I have made only three additions to the list - a small minority of what is on there. There have been various removals that I have not opposed, and indeed I made two removals myself.
It's also not my intention to denigrate anyone's efforts. I know that it takes a great deal of dedication, toil and inherent talent to win an Olympic medal in any discipline. People and governments are guided in the sports they choose, or choose to fund, by the decisions of the IOC and other bodies, and I think it's the sports governing bodies who need to change their approach so that the athletes' hard work is directed into something that is as worthwhile as possible.--CPalmer 12:24, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
And who is to set themselves up as judge and jury to decide what is "worthwhile" or not? If an athlete enjoys the sport, who are we to decide that the sport is a "joke", or that it is a waste of time for that athlete? Millions of dollars are spent in American football every year- and its point is? When I was little, and my dad watched football on TV, I thought the point was to see how many men could end up stacked in a pile. As an adult, to me it seems like it's just a chance for grown men to inflict violence on each other while chasing a ball around the field without facing legal ramifications. It's no more "worthwhile" in my eyes than the backstroke is in yours, but I'm not out there trying to justify its inclusion in the "joke sport" category. If you don't like the sport, then don't watch. Simple as that. SharonW 12:42, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
The IOC is the judge and the jury. They already do include some sports and exclude others, and they choose to allow different numbers of events in different sports. What I and others are saying is that we don't agree with some of the IOC's decisions. Maybe the term "joke sports" is unnecessarily inflammatory, but I wasn't the first to use it. That aside, what is so wrong with questioning or disagreeing with the IOC?
To give an example. The IOC allows FINA to award 34 gold medals for swimming, but restricts the UCI to only ten for track cycling. Why? The UCI would love to enlarge its program, there are lots of events it could include that seem more distinct than current swimming events, but it isn't allowed to - swimming is deemed 3.4 times more worthwhile a sport. So it's all very well you defending your hard-training, dedicated, deserving backstroke swimmers, but what about 1km cycling time triallists? What about individual pursuit riders? What about pairs who were hoping to compete in the Madison? An unquestioning acceptance of the IOC's diktat doesn't do much for their Olympic dreams.--CPalmer 06:01, 15 August 2012 (EDT)