Last modified on January 3, 2022, at 07:40

User talk:DanH

Return to "DanH" page.


User talk:MountainDew

User talk:DanHarchive1

User talk:DanHarchive2

User talk:DanHarchive3

User talk:DanHarchive4


Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

I'm not sure. DanH 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)


Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--JBuscombe 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. DanH 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. DanH 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Animals A etc.

Can you move Animals A to Animal Terms A

Animals C to Animal Terms C

Animals G to Animal Terms G

Animals P to Animal Terms P

Animals V to Animal Terms V

Animals W to Animal Terms W

Animals Y to Animal Terms Y

Animals Z to Animal Terms Z

? --Qweki2 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Possible Bans?

What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of User:Liberal9188 and User:HHSFake.. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.

I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- Fuzzy 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. HarryWharton 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 Fuzzy|AFD 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

So, what's the policy

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it en masse when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. ד.לערנער 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them en masse on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. Learn together 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)


Thank you. Feuerstein 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Why not copy from Wikipedia?

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--Asteroid 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) CLtFn--Asteroid 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Blessings to you on Easter -

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - Taj 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Happy Easter and......

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. Conservative 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)


While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --wikinterpreter Modspeed!

Thank you! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Great example

Great example of opportunity costs, Dan!--Aschlafly 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. DanH 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)


Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so here. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, HelpJazz 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)


Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the Marketplace of ideas. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --Ed Poor Talk 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)


Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. User:BertSchlossberg also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.

I'll have to look at that. DanH 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
See [1] First strike she did. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the link. DanH 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Tools

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) Geoff PlourdeComplain! 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Haha... oops. DanH 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Christianity templates

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. BrianCo 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Unprotected. DanH 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)


Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. Learn together 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. Peason 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. DanH 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? Donaldson
It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. Karajou 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.Donaldson 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Cracking the filter

Hooray Kansas

Congrats, but you do of course know that had Bucknell made it to the tournament this year, and had we played each other, we SO would have knocked you out this year. Again. So you should be thanking us. ;-) HelpJazz 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled edit

Why dod you revert the expelled change? The sentance 'making one wonder...' is really unencyclopedic AdenJ 01:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

It's probably not best to change the wording of the site's creator immediately after putting it there. DanH 02:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

A user's page is his castle, huh?

You know, just because I may have committed lese majeste against Blessed St. Ronald is no reason to go messing up the format of my userpage. Which nobody is supposed to mess with, anyway. And I do think Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's back in 1980. --Gulik5

That doesn't give you the right to be mean spirited or violate the Conservapedia Commandments. And don't be condescending enough to say that I think that Reagan is a saint. I have major problems with his deficit spending policies. DanH 16:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Page move request

can you delete States of the Unites States of America and States all they do is redirect to a category -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

States of the United States of America is linked to from eight other pages. Deleting it will break those links. Philip J. Rayment 20:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Opinion requested

Could you please weigh in on the discussion here? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. Jinkas 19:39, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi! from all of us at AtheistHQ

Hi Dan! You missed a few of us, ya big lug! And, on a different subject, you got something against quirky Twin Peaks references? TrueScouse 23:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I must have missed it - can't say I've ever watched Twin Peaks. DanH 00:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, you should, it's great. For future reference, when someone addresses a tape recorder by name, that's probably a TP-related joke. Plus, "hit the road jack"? That's a pretty odd joke as well, wouldn't ya say? BlueMouse 06:14, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks like a troll


Recent comment:

Maybe they're so conservative that they're liberal. Like they go around the whole political spectrum? Or maybe, just maybe, this "encyclopedia" is just a load of BS written "conservatives" who are upset that their beliefs all too often don't match up with reality so they need their own little sand box where they can censor any dissenters and tell themselves they're trustworthy and honest all they want without the threat of having their (crazy) beliefs mocked or criticized by anyone.

Jinxmchue 21:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

A major online conservative christian newspaper.....

A major online conservative christian newspaper is very interested in regards to Conservapedia's atheism article and the reporter said she would very likely do a story on it. She said her readers are VERY interested in the subject of atheism and the story that we are promoting our article and that some major Christian internet ministries have started to feature our article is a good story. I am making the conservapedia atheism article the article of the month which I think fits in nicely with the Expelled controversy. I have sent Andy an email on this matter and I am awaiting an answer. Conservative 14:46, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ajdak and Aydak


I can't find any information proving these are actually considered deities by any people -- 50 star flag.png User:Deborah (contributions) (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. DanH 19:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)


Why the reversion? I have, as requested by Philip, provided Biblical references on which the statement is founded. Bugler 14:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


Thank God, you came in at the right time!--MReilly 15:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Do you really think that God cares about websites? --DeanSa 15:43, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


Dan, I had a look at his edits and not all of it needs reverting - I would skip the talk pages for example so long as it's not objectionable. BrianCo 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm not a sock

I am not a sock. Yes, I am the same person who was TNS 1 and 2, but only because I lost the passwords to those accounts. They are no longer in use. TheNobleSith4 00:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

sysop-protected page

Hi, Lemon Test page has been protected: *10 February 2008 DanH Protected "Lemon test" [edit=sysop:move=sysop] - this page shows up in the list of "uncategorized pages" - requesting unprotect long enough to add a category, thanks! :) Taj 21:04, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. I forgot that was still protected. Hopefully three months is long enough. DanH 21:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! :) I added categories, if desired, please feel free to protect again, I'm done there now! -- Taj 21:15, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Ravings from the other side

Good luck with your finals! NewHouse 22:18, 11 May 2008 (EDT)


My talk page was vandalized, can i report this to you? --Reallife 01:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers, ill know that for the future, god bless. --Reallife 01:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)


Right, right. I'm so used to pressing "delete" instead of "backspace"... sorry about that. +_+ Kektk 23:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Ans is French for "years", so it's still a word. DanH 23:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)


Did you delete my Conservapedia bias page? If you did, you're just proving my point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiisin (talk)

No, that does not prove your point in any way. Sorry. HenryS 23:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes I did, and do you really expect an "equal airing" on a site called Conservapedia? DanH 03:11, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I expected "the facts" but I guess I'll go elsewhere for that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaiisin (talk)

quick note

DanH, in about a minute I am sending you an email I sent Andy and some other conservapedia Sysops. Your input would be much appreciated. Conservative 14:50, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

By the way, I have the vote of Joaquin Martinez and Ed Poor. TerryH read my proposal and has not stated anything for or against my proposal but my guess is that he will be for my proposal based on my previous interaction with TerryH. Do I have your vote for my proposal? Conservative 15:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
At this point in time, I abstain. DanH 15:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

al Qaeda

Hi, I'd like to make some changes to the article as described here, but the article is locked. Any chance of getting it unlocked? Dchall1 14:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I unlocked it. DanH 14:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, changes made. Dchall1 14:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)


Why did you delete then restore an article that kills its view count and decreases its ranking-- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Because it's an embarrassment to have Adolf Hitler in the top 5 for most viewed pages. It's bad enough that it was done with all the Homosexuality pages. DanH 14:55, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Just keep it like that, it will get us more traffic to our site, and I know it looks bad, but it increases rankings -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

  • I don't really care if Conservapedia is in the top 10 when you search for Adolf Hitler. It won't be anyway because there are way too many more popular sites that have already climbed the Google rankings. DanH 13:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)


If you don't mind me asking, what was that pledge removal thing about?Moonboots 21:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Communism and socialism

Thanks, Dan. [2] I have trouble explaining the distinction between Communism and Socialism. Perhaps a chart or table would help. --Ed Poor Talk


I noticed you deleted an article on Liberal Depravity just now for being parody. Although most likely written by a scheming editor, is it not a bit of a double standard to allow articles that scream parody to remain here on this site? I'm referring to Liberal tricks etc. and the homosexual articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JEdgar (talk)

I don't think Conservative has parody in mind. DanH 17:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
You are seperating the intent from the crime. If someone murders someone, its largely irrelevant if they intended them to die or not. By pointing the gun, even if they didn't mean to kill, they are asking for trouble. The same goes for these ludicrous articles. They make Conservapedia look like a parody of conservatism though are written by genuine people of a particularly reality-divorced position. You are a reasonable man, yet you never stand up to this nonsense. Why? JEdgar 19:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This person appears to be a trouble-maker, Dan. Check his edits and especially his userpage message. I think that's a good indicator of the type of behavior we should expect from him. Jinxmchue 21:51, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Because it would just get reversed. I'm not the only sysop watching. DanH 22:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberal depravity

If you didn't like my article, why not improve on it? Surely, nobody reading this site could draw any OTHER conclusion but that Liberals are immoral monsters, driven solely by their disgusting glandular urges and UTTER HATRED of God and America. Fnord. --Gulik 17:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't share that view, in fact, I have liberal views on some issue. You're obviously being a parodist. I expect better from you. Cut it out. DanH 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

If these are all "real articles":

  • Classical liberal
  • Drinking Liberally
  • Godless liberal
  • Hollywood values
  • Last wordism
  • Liberal activists
  • Liberal arts
  • Liberal Arts college
  • Liberal Bias
  • Liberal celebrity obsession
  • Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
  • Liberal Christianity
  • Liberal deceit
  • Liberal Democrats
  • Liberal denial
  • Liberal Elite
  • Liberal Falsehoods
  • Liberal Fascism
  • Liberal friendship
  • Liberal Gloss
  • Liberal grading
  • Liberal hate speech
  • Liberal Hypocrisy
  • Liberal hysteria
  • Liberal ideology
  • Liberal Intellectualism
  • Liberalism and art
  • Liberal labels
  • Liberal Lies About the American Right
  • Liberal logic
  • Liberal Mind
  • Liberal Myths
  • Liberal obfuscation
  • Liberal Party
  • Liberal quotient
  • Liberal supremacist
  • Liberal Style
  • Liberal tools
  • Liberal tricks
  • Liberal values
  • Massachusetts liberal
  • Professor values

(All taken from Liberal) Then I humbly submit that Liberal depravity should fit RIGHT IN. (And what are you allegedly have liberal views about, and how did you keep Mr. Schlafly from finding out?) --Gulik 17:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Public education, environmental issues/global warming, war on drugs. DanH 17:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


D'oh! Thanks for those. :) Jinxmchue 23:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I was initially confused as to why there wasn't an article on NPR. Great article, by the way! DanH 23:37, 23 May 2008 (EDT)


Wow, thanks for the instantaneous move of the page! Foxtrot 16:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Kitzmiller Article

I posted another edit of the Kitzmiller v Dover article on the article's talk page. Could you please review? --Jimmy 11:16, 26 May 2008 (EDT)


Dan, you just blocked someone for five years for changing one word on the Nicaragua page, possibly mistakenly. A block might be warranted, but don't you think you're being a bit crazily harsh? I would think a week would be sufficient punishment for a mistake that might well have been an honest one? Just asking you to think about it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 19:00, 27 May 2008 (EDT)


Hey, I noticed you undid my change here but didn't give an explanation. Thanks for your time. SamSamson 16:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

About the "Screamo" page

You commented on my talk page about "Screamo" and asked about sources, proof, ect.

Here goes:

1. You beleive that bands such as "The Used", "Rise Against", "Atreyu", and others are "Screamo" bands. This is not the case

Here is a sample of real "Screamo"

Here is a sample of something that is NOT screamo

Clearly, there is a difference in the two songs. The "Screamo" sample includes music that is nearly completely composed of screaming vocals, while the "Non-Screamo" sample is composed mostly of singing vocals with little screaming sections.

To be classified as "Screamo", a song must have mostly screaming vocals in it, and not for only 10-20 seconds. It has to be nearly the WHOLE song. Here is a link to a site which contains user votes on what is "real screamo" and what is not

2. Next up, you questioned why i listed bands that did not popularize the genre. Well, here is what is going down: The Used, Atreyu, and Rise Against are not screamo, thus they did not popularize the genre

However, I listed bands such as CTTS, Envy, and Funeral Dinner because they are the bands that have started the genre, as well as popularizing it. You can read it on other sites (including wikipedia)

Alright, theres my discussion for the day. I suggest you keep the "screamo" page as it is, because non of the bands that were originally listed were considered as "screamo" bands

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yelonde (talk)

thank you

Thank you for noticing, and reverting, the ridiculous comment someone left on my talk page. Taj 18:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Why did you revert my edits?

Hello Dan,

Why did you revert my edits to the Apartheid page? It added a wealth of new information to the article.


Because they reflected a pro-apartheid viewpoint and we do not support that here. DanH 21:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry? Pro-Apartheid? I simply said that PW Botha put the idea of the creation of a Colored and Indian Houses of Parliament to the White electorate, of whom 66% voted to include. Can you tell me how that is pro-Apartheid? It's fact, not opinion.

Secondly Dr.Verwoerd did change the name from Apartheid to seperate developement, check on the United Nations website if you don't believe me.

The previous person to edit it put "unfortunately" the West backed them. How is it unfortunate? Conservative regimes in the West backed the Christian, capitalist regime of the National Party against the Marxist, atheist ANC and PAC.

And thirdly, I came here to be with fellow Conservatives. Forbidding pro-Apartheid material is a very liberal course of action, in my belief.


Rule 5 of the Conservapedia Commandments

"Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited."

The person who editted Apartheid before me inserted their opinion by putting "unfortunately" Western governments backed Apartheid. Shouldn't their edits be reverted?



What??? Are you out to get me here or something. You are watching my every edit and then reverting them on a whim.

The AWB is conservative, it wished to conserve the regime that was in place. It was not racist, it was racialist yes, it acknowledged the existance of different races.

Why would a "racist" organisation enter in an alliance with the Black Inkatha Freedom Party?


What "different races"? There's one race: the human race. Philip J. Rayment 08:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, but that was not the view of the AWB.


Black people could vote under Apartheid


Black people could vote under Apartheid, in their Bantustans, but not in White South Africa. So it is unfair to say that Black people were only given the vote in 1994. In fact in the Bophuthatswana Bantustan it appeared most of its Black residents did not want to vote, as there was only a 0.6% turnout.


I sent you an email buddy AdenJ 06:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jedisqrl (talk)


At the risk of sounding like a subversive jerk, are you sure two weeks isn't too much? HenryS 23:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe so... you can reduce it if you'd like.. I was actually tempted to make it much longer. DanH 23:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I vote reduce it to one week. For name calling and edit warring. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 23:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
What page was the name calling and edit warring on? HenryS 23:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
His own talk page. DanH 00:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I see. The insult was directed at a now banned troll. I would recommend a short block or just a warning (which he didn't get unless he removed it). Parodist or not, he at least added content. That's what we need. Oh well, I support whatever you choose. I trust you want what's best :)HenryS 00:07, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the insult was directed as much at me as it was at the other user. As for the "banned troll" I don't know if he deserved a block. all he did was disagree with Andy on something. He wasn't even blocked by a sysop. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:10, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I interpreted his comment as being directed at Tim, but it was kind of ambiguous. DanH 00:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

If the comment was directed at Tim and Tim is ok with a reduction, then we should honor that request. Learn together 01:28, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I reduced the block to a week per Henry and Tim. DanH 02:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


I added another one. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 00:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


Thank you, sir. Ultimahero 05:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

please see my note to him regarding revert

please see my note to him regarding revert. for example, the david quote gets duplicated. Conservative 23:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservative Style Page

Please see the "Colleges" Section of Mr. Schalfly's talk page. In that section, he gave express permission for a "conservative style" page. --AndrasK 21:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

But this was an express parody. DanH 21:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

How so? It was merely trying to emulate the format and style of the Liberal Style page. It is not parody, it is creating a more complete encyclopedia. --AndrasK 21:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It was parody, and even if it was sincerely meant - which I doubt - that still wouldn't make it acceptable. Faulty appeal to "balance" or "a more complete encyclopedia" is part of Liberal Style. We are not here to make a "complete" encyclopedia. We are here to make a truthful and accurate encyclopedia, and attacking the project won't get you anywhere. Marty 21:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

But what defined it as a parody? I know parody as defined as "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule." The Conservative Style page, however, is imitated not in ridicule but only in the name of being "truthful" and "accurate." The style of the liberal style page was imitated to maintain consistency. --AndrasK 21:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

There's really nothing more I can say. I'm not a big proponent of demonization of ideologies... DanH 21:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

So you are saying that because you are a counter-example to one of the points made, that the page merits deletion? --AndrasK 21:48, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

No, that's not what I meant. I was referring to my personal opinion of the liberal style page. DanH 21:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I apologize, but I am not quite sure I understand what you are trying to communicate. I believe that what you are saying is that you do not agree with all the points given in the liberal style page. Is that correct? If not, some elucidation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you --AndrasK 21:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is correct. DanH 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

If that is your basis for the deletion of the conservative style page, then why is the liberal style page also not marked and processed for deletion? --AndrasK 21:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It was not intended by its authors as a parody - the new page was intended to parodize a page with sincerity in intentions. DanH 22:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

So you are saying that you presume to know the intentions of its authors? It interests me as to how you could know this, as the authors never expressly dictated their motivations. Unless if I am missing something, I cannot see how you could definitively know the intentions of the authors. --AndrasK 22:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

No, though I can reasonably infer. Even if that wasn't the case, I can't delete something written by the site owner. DanH 22:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

But you can delete something that was given express permission by the owner of the site? Be careful with assumptions, they can lead to a faulty conclusion. --AndrasK 22:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It was re-created I see, so I'll let others sort it out for now. DanH 22:12, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Glad we could reach a compromise. Pleasure talking to you good sir. --AndrasK 22:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama and Islam

DanH, please don't leave over it. Just make your disapproval known. It's the best you can do, and we really need you here. HenryS 20:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Burning a sock

Hi Dan, this is your old pal FIippin. A long time ago, when you banned me, I was a little upset, but I appreciated the fact that you did so in accordance with your principles. As FIippin, I actually only committed a small act of vandalism for which Ed banned me for a week. I came back and lasted until the purge about a year ago. At that time, one of the pages I was working on was about a poet. I forget who, probably my favorite, Richard Hugo. After the block you left a brief note over at RW saying you were sorry to block me, and that the pages I'd been making were good. I really respected that, and I know that kind of treatment of others kept you from being included in the usual taunts and scorn brought to bear on folks like Karajou.

I am writing to say I am sorry to see you go. I respect you as a person, and an editor. Leaving CP in this manner is a brave move on your part, and I sincerely wish you the best. Maybe you can put in a good word for me with Andy so he doesn't call the CIA or FBI.

That said, in solidarity I will be discontinuing the use of any and all of my socks on CP. Currently that's about 4 users, so not a huge break for karajou, or Andy, but heartfelt, and sincere.

To the greater CP community, I think this should signal why this project will not work. In the end, it will never be completely safe from liberalism as its owner hopes. There is simply no way to create a static social system. People change, interpretations of history change, and perspectives broaden experience. This last point is something I think Dan just learned.

Respectfully, FIippin

I agree, FIippin. DanH, you were one of the most fair-minded and principled sysops here -- you will be sorely missed here. ClassicBlue 11:47, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Flippin, I might add, is a liar. He had no respect for this site from the start; he had no respect for its users. And to that end he boasted of his own cyber-terrorism against this site to a newspaper reporter. So, the question is should we continue to be fair-minded to people such as him? The answer is a clear no. The bottom line is that Flippin was never man enough to be an honest, responsible human being. Karajou 12:23, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Obama issue

While I can see your point about Obama and Christianity, I don't think Americans should always believe politicians when they falsely claim to be Christians. 1 John 5:1 does not say otherwise.

Obama himself has claimed to be a Christian in ways that have been politically beneficial to him. As with any claims by a politician, voters have a right and a duty to inquire whether the politician's claims are in fact true. We would do no less when allowing someone to care for our children. Why who would we do any less in voting for a president?

This issue, frankly, has as much to do with the candidate's honesty and credibility as it has to do with his actual religious belief.

More information has recently been posted on this issue in the Barack Obama entry.--Aschlafly 08:34, 22 June 2008 (EDT)


It's August now, you've been gone since June and we still miss you. :( Taj 15:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Seconded. Foxtrot 21:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
Also. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:33, 7 August 2008 (EDT)


I'm recreating cannibalism as a redirect to Anthropophagy. If there's any problem with this, please let me know. (From what I can see you were the one who deleted the previous page, so I though I should let you know and see if there were any objections.) ArnoldFriend 12:49, 4 November 2008 (EST)

DanH has been gone since June, so you won't get an answer from him. Ed Poor deleted Cannibalism once, but a new article was created and has been there for some time, so I don't see why there needs to be a separate Anthropophagy article. So instead of Cannibalism becoming a redirect, the content of Anthropophagy should be moved to Cannibalism and Anthropophagy made the redirect. Although I think that the content of Anthropophagy needs a bit of work done to it. Philip J. Rayment 21:07, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Rather Arbitrary..

I noticed that you follow a lot of sports around the same location. Might you live around the Kansas-Missouri boarder? As a Missourian I feel obligated to know. --Man O Wisdom (talk) 02:40, January 3, 2022 (EST)