Last modified on November 23, 2011, at 21:52

User talk:TK

Return to "TK" page.
Conservapedia logo2.png Welcome to the talk page of TK, an Administrator for Conservapedia. Clear and concise messages are most likely to get the fastest response and prevent misunderstandings. If you have been blocked or wish to talk about a personal matter, please email me instead. I don't have the authority in most cases to overturn another administrator's block, necessitating that you contact them by email first. If you are unable to contact the blocking user, I will be happy to forward your email on to them.

I look forward to serving you and thank you for your contributions to Conservapedia!



TK (28th December 1950 - 17th December 2010)

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.---Thomas Paine

Don't Be A Paste Eater! This Means You.


Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3
Archive #4 Archive #5 Archive #6
Archive #7 Archive #8 Archive #9
Archive #10 Archive #11 Archive #12
Archive #13 Archive #14

You fixed it

I can do stuff now, Thank you. Ctown200 08:05, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Friendly Question

Hello, I'm David. I don't want to be a bother but I noticed you had a lot of boxes on your userpage and am curious as to how I can customize my userpage similar to that as well. Any suggestions? (Fyi, I'm not really internet savy) Thank you! --Davidkon 18:30, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Suggestion for Obama article

What do you think about my suggestion to remove name repetition in the Obama article? I wasn't sure where to post so I edited the talk page. Does my suggestion seem appropriate? I want to make sure I have consensus before I (possibly) implement it. Thank you! In Christ, Tyler Zoran Talk 14:40, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

I would remove about half the repetitions you suggest, to begin, then we can see what the others think about it. And I don't want removal of most of the references to his full name, because he tries so hard to hide it, not use's obviously a sensitive point for him. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:35, 9 May 2010 (EDT)
Right, I want to preserve the references to Hussein; it was the numerous Obamas in every sentence that I want to start working on. When I'm not rushing out the door, I'll make a few changes and let everyone see what they think. Thanks! Tyler Zoran Talk 17:02, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Search box suggestions

Any reason this variable isn't enabled? It would make the go/search box show suggested titles. Ctown200 18:11, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

I have referred this to our Webmaster, Ctown. Thanks for your suggestion --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:13, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

merged two articles to Birthplace of Barack Obama Controversy

TK, Barack Obama birthplace controversy and Birthplace of Barack Obama can both be deleted; they were virtually identical, so I copied the contents to Birthplace of Barack Obama Controversy. Thanks! Tyler Zoran Talk 11:14, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

The "replacement" was just as poorly formatted as either of the originals, so still substandard, Tyler. I trashed it. What I asked you to do was pick one of the articles and merge the other into it, not create yet another...wiping all the history. Please make additions to one, and format it properly. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:07, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
Also, let's get rid of the red links! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:12, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
All right, that looks like it's totally taken care of. Sorry about the poor naming and asking Ed; he made a note of it so I thought I'd respond to him. That appears to be settled, though, and I really appreciate the help. In Christ, Tyler Zoran Talk 21:28, 10 May 2010 (EDT)
My apologies on the substandard formatting; as I'm just now starting final exams, I won't have time for several weeks to really improve those articles. Sorry about the confusion! Tyler Zoran Talk 23:56, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Problematic User

Can user Uncyclopediauser be removed? A brief look at this new user's page tells me immediately that he is up to no good and a probable vandal. "I hate Conservapedia and I think that its users are some of the worst people on earth" - as his user page states. I'd like to preemptively stop any vandalism from this user. In Christ, Tyler Zoran Talk 11:29, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

Also, as we encourage the use of real or non-foolish user names here, I don't believe this user sends the right example. Tyler Zoran Talk 11:31, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

New user

Just wondering why my contribution on illegal drugs was reverted? Just curious since im new here.

Check out the welcome template I placed on your talk page, and please read the links provided before editing. You removed a key paragraph before inserting your own information without logical reason (note that we get lots of "vandalism" of all kinds here and its hard to distinguish the intent of new users), and your attempt to add a reference section was incorrect, is why. Please always sign your posts (using either four " ~ " or simply hitting the sig button at the top of the edit section. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:33, 14 May 2010 (EDT)


Thanks again for your help with my username! RaymondP 20:03, 15 May 2010 (EDT)


Looking at your recent headline, I was wondering if the definition of Obamageddon referring to the Obama's probable failures and defeats in the coming years should be added to the Obamageddon page. Thanks.RaymondP 00:42, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Feel free! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:43, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome TK!

I guess that says it all; I only recently discovered Conservapedia but I really am excited to try and contribute whatever I can to such an ambitious project. God bless! WillS 18:00, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Great block and revert

Great block and revert, TK!--Andy Schlafly 18:08, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks :D ! The more we are right, like with the recent adoption by the Texas school board of our championed causes, and Rand Paul's historic victory, the more the liberals and their vandal site will attempt to destroy us. Perhaps next will be the White House smearing us; that would be a real badge of honor! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:36, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Arizona immigration law

Thanks for the advice you gave me on my new Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article, but like I mentioned on the new article's talk page, today and tommorrow, I'll be working on a video that I will upload to youtube in just a couple of days from today, which will promote this new article I created and encourage liberals in particular to read the law and stop making straw man attacks against the law. Also, I don't know much about the detailed history of the Arizona law, but In the meantime, if you know more about it than I, you can make necessary updates and changes if you like. That will be of great help to me and will save me a lot of time. God bless you!!! Willminator 17:10, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I made some changes. On the article, I mentioned that 60% to 70% of Americans support Arizona's new immigration bill. I also put a summary of Mexico's immigration policy. I couldn’t find any place that has some information on and a summary of U.S immigration policy, which I know, like you said, is tougher on illegal immigrants than Arizona’s new immigration bill. Need some help on that… Willminator 11:08, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
I will look for my saved links on that topic, and add it. Thanks! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:45, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
I made some minor changes this morning and I tried to put the words, phrases, and sentences in the bill where it prohibits racial profiling and enforces federal laws, but only parts of phrases and sentences would be in bold, so I changed it back to normal. Did you find the links. The section U.S Immigration Policy is yet to be written. Once the article is completed to satisfaction, I will upload the youtube video I told you about. Willminator 13:17, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
Here you go, Willminator: [1] & [2] --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:34, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
I found some more information and I was finally able to write some things in the U.S Immigration Policy section. I'm hoping to expand that section. Any advice on the section if you have any? Also, is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of September 30, 1996 (110 Statutes at Large 3009) still used today? Should I use some of the points for the “U.S Immigration Policy” section?[3]
I didn’t put anything about it because I don’t know if I should. If you think that I should, what should I write?
Thanks for all your help. Willminator 16:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Still looking foward for your reply and help. By the way, I made a new section that summarizes Arizona's Immigration bill. Check it out. However, I think than all the page numbers on the summary there need to be revised in my opinion since last time I checked, the bill is 16, not 17 pages long, so I also need help on that, please. Check them out to see if they need to be fixed. Anyway, remember that I'm plannining to make a video of my new page. I don't want liberals to see it uncompleted. Also, I'm planning to start a new article and a new essay, but again, I have to finish the Arizona thing first. Willminator 18:32, 30 May 2010 (EDT)


I had heard of that study before, but I also had heard of all the criticisms of it. Unsurprisingly, liberals didn't hear or didn't care about the criticisms. I modified the paragraph to reflect the reality of the study and the reaction to it. I really don't care one way or the other for the paragraph. I was just having a little fun by posting the truth. Jinx McHue 20:04, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

I just missed the "truth", I guess. No big deal...crappy day it was, so was not understanding what the whole deal was about. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:36, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
Don't worry about it. Sorry if I made your day worse. Jinx McHue 22:34, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Time out?

I've been unable to create an account til now because there seems to be some kind of time block on the website. Is there any way around this? I'm from Aust and the time difference is quite substantial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LukeR (talk)

I have no idea, Luke, I saw you created your account some time ago, added the welcome message to your page, so perhaps you mean you tried earlier? Sometimes editing is off over-night, roughly from 2AM until 6AM, New Jersey time, but that's it. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:12, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Oil Spill

Since you seem to disagree with my efforts to remove a piece of deceit from the oil spill page, I'd like to know your personal opinion on the issue. Thanks. RaymondP 12:57, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

I think Krugman is a committed leftist, internationalist and professional manipulator as many economists are. As we saw recently with the anti-Obama diatribe of James Carville, Krugman wanted to infer one thing and say another, which is a pretty common device. Most anyone who follows politics in the U.S. knows that Obama's main problems come from his fellow liberals, not the other side. Liberals are very, very angry with him, on almost all issues. What RobS is trying to do is show Krugman's mechanization's, a difficult thing to do. To that end, I reverted you, not because I don't believe your sincere disagreement, but because I understand how difficult it is to show what Krugman and others are trying to do. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:49, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Believe me, I'm not at all a fan of Krugman either. But in this case, I don't think he was being deceitful with his title. He was simply mocking an expected conservative opinion. RobS, for whatever reason, seems persistent on trying to imply, or at least give the impression, that Krugman in some way blames Obama, which is exactly the opposite of what the first sentence of the article shows. There's a major difference between pushing an honest conservative view, which simply comes naturally when one pushes for the truth, and distorting one's views to make them seem more conservative. Frankly, I don't even think Krugman's article would have a place in the entry even if it wasn't shown so deceitfully, since it's nothing more than liberal clap-trap. On that note, I'd like to ask for your permission to delete the reference. RaymondP 19:43, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Actually, that was quite a lot more wordy than I meant it to be, so let me sum that up. Krugman's piece, although it may seem to be conservative if one only reads the title, is nothing more than liberal blabber. It has no place in the article. RaymondP 19:53, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Who knows what Krugman meant; it's classic liberal doublespeak. All we can do is take him at his word, i.e. what he wrote. He wrote, "The oil spill is Obama's fault." Then, Krugman, an economist, wades into commentary on journalism and political affairs. Krugman and believers have a habit of doing that -- making flawed economic arguments while the real jist of any discussion always turns political. Look at his latest column as another classic example of Krugman the political pundit.
All we can do is take him at his word. He wrote it. The NYT published it. It certainly fits WP's verifiability policy ("verifiable - not true"). End of story. Rob Smith 19:58, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
RobSmith, I really hope that you're not intentionally being dull. Did you read the actual article? Did you even read the first sentence of it? I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't find any good reason why you would ignore the truth and choose to deceive readers.RaymondP 20:09, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
Since I'm getting somewhat worked up, I'm going to just back off of this issue for now and come back to it later. I really do hope you come to your senses RobS, and TK, I apologize for turning your talk page into somewhat of a forum.RaymondP 20:11, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

It is the nature of the Internet, I guess. :P Given the fact that daily tens of thousands of cats and dogs are put down because they have no home, or millions of people are denied basic rights due to liberal beliefs, spreading eugenics and loss of personal freedom across the planet, what the likes of Krugman and his ilk think mean little. You have a difference of opinion on how to communicate his intent with Rob, Raymond....that isn't anything very big. Just remember to argue ideas, not intelligence. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:30, 27 May 2010 (EDT)


[this] user is vandalizing pages pretty rapidly. Thanks! TerryB 20:19, 28 May 2010 (EDT)


TK! It's been a crazy long time (although probably not as long as it feels - oh, the high speed of college life); if you still use it - hit me up on AIM some time! --IDuan 11:40, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

If not - if you could add University of Mary Washington and Amherst College to Template:Nb US universities - I'd appreciate it!--IDuan 21:52, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, just assumed you saw me online, dude. I unlocked the template, and am on AIM daily. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:57, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Ah, I missed ya! Thanks on the temp, you're the best. I went ahead and added the page.--IDuan 22:02, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Can you get this formatted?

<iframe src="" height="490" style="align:center;" width="300px" marginheight="5" marginwidth="5" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> Rob Smith 03:39, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

As far as I know, we have yet to install the Wikimedia extension(s) that will allow embedding of video here. You might want to check with Webmaster, but I am not aware of it. I will check with Andy about doing so! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:06, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

I can't make an account with my real name

You blocked ChrisG90 because the account wasn't made with first name and last initial. My last name is Thompson, but Conservapedia won't let me make the account ChrisT90 (probably because it looks like "Christ"), so I had to use my middle initial instead of last. Is this current account acceptable? ChrisGT90 19:48, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Your user name is fine. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 19:59, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

My Arizona Immigration Law questions and updates

I'll reask this word for word. I found some more information and I was finally able to write some things in the U.S Immigration Policy section. I'm hoping to expand that section. Any advice on the section if you have any? Also, is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of September 30, 1996 (110 Statutes at Large 3009) still used today? Should I use some of the points for the “U.S Immigration Policy” section?[5] [6] I didn’t put anything about it because I don’t know if I should. If you think that I should, what should I write? Thanks for all your help. Willminator 12:38, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Oh, I almost forgot. I made a new section that summarizes Arizona's Immigration bill. Check it out. However, I think than all the page numbers on the summary there need to be revised in my opinion since last time I checked, the bill is 16, not 17 pages long and the page numbers doesn't look right, so I also need help on that, please. Check them out to see if they need to be fixed. Also, I recently made a section that asks tough questions to liberals about the bill. Anyway, remember that I'm plannining to make a video of my new page. I don't want liberals to see it uncompleted. Also, I'm planning to start a new article and a new essay, but again, I have to finish the Arizona thing first. However, I want for others to contribute to the article. I can't be the only 1 working on it. God bless... Willminator 12:44, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Don't worry about the number of pages, as that varies depending on the format it is presented in, and if the amendments are included, etc. I will get into it later today and see what I can add. Thanks for your efforts! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:18, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
Has anything else been added yet? This has to be done before the controversy gets resolved. Willminator 20:32, 2 June 2010 (EDT)


Ok, sorry, next time instead of changing an article again after an administrator changed it, I will propose my suggested changes on the talk page so that they can be debated. Sorry again, I didn't mean any disrespect. --MarcoT 15:48, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Edits and username

I noticed that you reverted an edit (that I thought was constructive) on the article about [George W Bush]. I thought that saying "liberal Democrat" sounded like saying "round circle" or "rectangular square" -- excessive wordiness that does not add any information -- and that it was best to truncate to just "Democrat". I apologize if I was in error, but is there a flaw in my reasoning? I also saw that my username does not inspire confidence. My username is first name, middle initial, and last initial followed by my birth year. I was going to make my username as per Conservapedia guidelines, but ChrisT doesn't seem like a good username to use, and Conservapedia wouldn't let me make it anyway. I also added the birth year at the end to allow a little more flexibility, that way somebody else with my same first name and last initial could also join Conservapedia. Mr. Schlafly said it was okay, but I am willing to recreate my account in a way that satisfies everyone. I cannot, however, make it with first name and last initial, so some other substitute will have to work.ChrisGT90 20:21, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Administrators have been here for a long time and understand what we are aiming for. It is not wise to undo administrators edits. If Andy's OKed your username, then it's OK. JacobB 20:41, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
I must assume ChrisGT90 missed reading the warning where it said AND/OR, or just assumed I was talking about his user name and not his edits....brevity is valued by conservatives, so no need for all that detail unless asked. Thanks for helping the editor stay on the right track, Jacob. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:23, 1 June 2010 (EDT)
I did miss the and/or part of that message. I apologize; I was in error. I still believe it is unnecessarily wordy to refer to Gore as a "liberal Democrat," but I respect your decision to keep it as such -- you know the site's mission better than I do. I haven't been around long, and I'm still trying to figure out how everything works here. Conservapedia is a great site, and I hope to be a helpful contributor. ChrisGT90 12:11, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
Encyclopedic entries, without context, do not offer a learning experience, Chris. Given the proven deceitful nature of liberals and their ilk, CP seeks to add context and additional factual information so that our users can have the needed tools to decide for themselves as opposed to group-thinking leftists. Not all Democrats are what I would consider a modern liberal in the Pelosi vein, so it is sometimes necessary to identify a liberal as a liberal, so that readers might differentiate an old-school classic liberal like JFK, early Hubert Humphrey or Lieberman, and socialists like Pelosi, Barack Obama or Harry Reid. It is often very difficult to wear the double hats of encyclopedia and teacher, as you are finding out! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

Can you please delete the two edits by the user I just blocked?

Thanks. euHcM xniJ 12:24, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Last Arizona Senate Immigration Bill favor

Hello TK, this will be the last time I’m going to ask you for help on the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article. If nothing gets done by tommorrow, I’ll ask the other Conservapedians for help.

So far, I believe that there might be 4 things that needs to be fixed, which I need some help.

1) The U.S Immigration Policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section needs to be expanded a bit more and probably the Questions for Liberals section as well.

2) The page numbers in parenthesis on the Summary of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section might need to be updated so that it can more accurately what part of the bill is summarized. The source of the summary assumes that the bill is 17, not 16 pages long. I read the bill and I see that the page numbers are not really accurate. You can delete the page numbers if you think it should, but I still think the page numbers are useful for the summary.

3) The language or tone of the article might need some change.

4) Anything else I might not have mentioned and noticed

So far, I’ve been the sole contributor of the article I created. Now, it’s time for other people to help me out and soon before people completely lose interest on the controversial law. Again, some help would be appreciated. Take care and God bless you. Willminator 12:22, 4 June 2010 (EDT)


Any reason you reverted my edit to dog? I thought my version was better, but I could be wrong. PaulRy 19:36, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

There you go, things are often subjective! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:39, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

Thank you!!

I appreciate the welcome. I posted an observation on the Counterexamples article. I myself have no political leanings, I guess I'm just openminded, moderate I suppose but I have some concerns as posted there. DouglasM 15:58, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Just a little help here

Hello TK, I found this interesting article a few days ago. I believe that it contains some things I could put for the U.S immigration policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section, but I don’t know what I can write from this. [7] By the way, in the meantime I created a mystery article about something I've been contemplating recently called Mystery:Why Does God Exist?. Check it out. Willminator 16:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Image Uploads

When its convenient, can you look at image upload requests? Thank you. --BishoiH 16:33, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. --BishoiH 17:22, 14 June 2010 (EDT)


Ah, I apologize. I assumed that Category:American History was for articles related to North America and such in general, not specifically the U.S. JonB 12:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

All is well....that's what I figured! Perhaps we need a category for things like this....."The Americas" or something like that? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 12:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Seeing as the point of Conservapedia is to educate, I can't see any problem with that. Would certainly help - Proper categories are essential. JonB 12:32, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Wait a second - this category is for the history of the USA, and Category:American History contains, for example, Inca and the subcategory Central American History. Doesn't that mean that I wasn't quite as mistaken as I thought? JonB 13:06, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Some incorrect news on the news page

Hello TK, I was wondering if you could help me.

The main page's news section mentions England's football/soccer game against the USA a few days ago and theres a mistake in the news that I think could be changed.

The news section says "atheistic nation fails in major sporting event again" (or similar words to that effect, I don't remember the full title). reffering to England. Now I'm English and Christian and we are not an atheistic nation, we are a Christian country with a state religion of Church of England. Sure we may seem like that but the majority of our population are Christian, we just don't mention it as much as the US does.

Could you change this news part so it is not incorrect anymore. King1 13:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

No. It is not incorrect. Godspeed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:07, 16 June 2010 (EDT)


Hey TK, thanks for your help. I have a question on something. Should I include the green text, which denotes changes made by HB2162, of the Arizona immigration bill or not? Are the green changes made in the bill actually official or are they unofficial changes that should be ignored in my article about Arizona's immigration bill? What do you think? Is this relevant to the article or not? Thanks for your help. [8] Willminator 21:38, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

Normally changes to bills, things that are removed, are shown in strike-out. No need for color text as it will just trash up the article and be distracting, IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:41, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

What Does This Warning Mean?

"Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience"

At the artcile on Conservapedia I clicked to get to its Talk Page, and that warning appeared. Does that mean that posting discussion on that Talk Page is forbidden or uncouth? Is the "log" the content visible below the warning? I didn't see a link to any log. Take my hand, I'm a stranger in paradise. (Thunkful 10:42, 17 June 2010 (EDT))
Since only Administrators can delete content (and even then it isn't really deleted) what that means is some members of a well-known vandal site did their thing there, disrupting, arguing and lying, and they were allowed to vent then it was all deleted. Often times one can just post to one of us, and ask questions, but if you have questions about the CP article, post them there. I'll clear that warning so you will feel better.... :P --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:59, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

Gadsden Flag

Much thanks for the helpful edits on the article about the Gadsden Flag! It certainly needed some cleanup edits, and probably could use more info if not already added. In any case, I just wanted to say thanks for the additional edits. :-) DerekE 17:43, 19 June 2010 (EDT)


I saw the Educational Index. Would there happen to be any courses on physics? (more specifically Einstein's theory of general relativity). KenJ 19:36, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

General relativity is a very complicated subject, with pre-requisites in many disparate fields and only of interest to a small percentage of the population (as opposed to say american government or calculus). For this reason, among others, we won't offer such a course here. However, there are many texts well adopted for home study. If you have studied differential geometry, either on your own or in university, I would suggest the book by the authors Misner Thorne Wheeler (the book is called Gravitation, I think, but everybody calls it Misner Thorne Wheeler) as an excellent introduction to the subject. JacobBShout out! 21:48, 20 June 2010 (EDT)


Thank you for the heads-up, and the compliment! FOIA 07:03, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

British Petroleum is BP

BP no longer uses the name British Petroleum. Source ChrisGT90 20:38, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Tell me something new. Through mergers and acquisitions they have officially shed the name British Petroleum, yes. Try using that name, and see who stops you legally, eh? When a huge disaster strikes, they no longer want their name, and us reminding them of whom really owns the company is important to the truth, ChrisGT90. If you can convince RobS that the name should be totally removed from the article, then I don't have a problem with you doing so. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:38, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
I got that source from one of the headlines that RobS posted on the main page: "Yahoo News: Obama's "crude, bigoted, xenophobic display of partisan political Presidential petulance" threatens retired pensioners worldwide by exploiting class war over the BP spill." Referring to BP as British Petroleum was part of the "partisan political Presidential petulance" in which BHO took part. I would hate to see Conservapedia commit the same error. Considering the source came from RobS, it seems fair to revert back to BP for now, and then let RobS comment himself if he finds issue with that use of his source. ChrisGT90 22:26, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
Note: I do agree that the name British Petroleum is significant. The article should probably say somewhere "...BP (formerly known as British Petroleum)..." but it only needs to say that once, as that is not the company's name anymore, nor has it been for some time. ChrisGT90 22:28, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
Yes, I do agree, but since the article is the work of my fellow Administrator, RobS, I will leave it up to him. CP doesn't put as much stock in wiki-lawyers as other sites do, and the spirit of the truth must be served as well as just the technical truth. BP owns the corporate name British Petroleum, maintains the copyright/trademark on it, and owns contracts in that name which are still enforceable, therefore, in true actuality there is no difference, other than their preference, between the two names. One stands for the other and are interchangeable. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:36, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
I agree. We'll leave it up to RobS. I do want to point out, though, that BP doesn't own British Petroleum. British Petroleum merged with Amoco in 1999 and the company became BP Amoco. In 2000 the company became BP. There is no Amoco. There is no British Petroleum. The parts that made up British Petroleum and Amoco still exist, but those two entities do not. It's like Czechoslovakia, but in reverse. Originally there was no Czech Republic or Slovakia, just Czechoslovakia. Now there are two countries, and neither one of them is or was Czechoslovakia; they're both separate entities from the original, although they share some of its history and land.
Anyway, I agree in letting RobS decide. I feel the fairest course of action would be to change it the article to the official name and see if RobS wants to change it back. Leaving it as it is in the technically incorrect form lends it to the easy path of leaving it wrong because that's "how it is now." ChrisGT90 23:07, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
  • An administrator must to the name change in order to keep the article history intact. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:35, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

I meant changing the name in the article about the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. ChrisGT90 00:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Okay, you win. I will take the heat from Rob if he doesn't like it. First couple of mentions should have Brit Petro, and second one should have (Changed name to BP in ___). That fine with you? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:43, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
I will take the heat if he doesn't like it. While I believe my proposed edit shouldn't have any heat to take, I wouldn't let anybody else take the fall for my cause. I'll make the change, and if he doesn't like it he can discuss it with me. At the risk of sounding corny, I would like to add that I think all of us can win together. (Yep, it sounded corny.) ChrisGT90 04:18, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Yup, you did. :P Proceed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 05:01, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Help me with just this one thing

Hello TK. I've been looking on around and it seems to me that there is more material and a lot of significant changes added to and taken out of the bill now than the current version we have on Conservapedia. For example, it seems that 2 more pages and many other additions and changes starting from page 1 has been added to and taken away from the bill. [9]. Check that out to see what I mean. I don't know if I should put all of these changes to the version of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 that we currently have on Conservapedia. Should all these changes be added or are they not necessary or / nor official? What I'm trying to say is that the Arizona's illegal immigration law on the link I posted above reads very differently from Conservapedia's article of Arizona's illegal immigration law when you compare them to each other starting from page 1 and down. Which one do you think is the official, correct version of the bill? This is my last question concerning editting suggestions on the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article. After that, I'm going to upload to youtube the video I made to promote this article so that more people can read this controversial and historic law. This is the video I've told you about before. [10] God bless you. Willminator 8:31, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Will, I wouldn't include every change they made, but use the external link header to link to the official history of the bill that the State of Arizona maintains. I followed one of your links, days ago, that took me to the correct, final version of the bill....if you still need help finding it, let me know and I will go dig it up. BTW, nice video! I have passed the link to Mr. Schlafly. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
I think I know what link you may be referring to, but just in case, you can dig up the link for me just so that I may be sure of what link you're referring to. By the way, Mr. Schlafly liked the video I made. Tomorrow to by the end of this week, that video will be up on youtube, but before I do that, send me that link you're talking about so that I could possibly make the necessary changes to the article. God bless you. Willminator 21:03, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
Here you go: check here. On the upper left side of that page is a link to the engrossed bill, [11] "Below is an engrossed version of SB1070 with the pertinent changes made by the Conference Engrossed HB2162. BLUE text indicates the original language of SB1070 and GREEN text denotes changes made by HB2162."
What all that means is what you see will be the final version, and they also make it easy to follow the changes by using different colors, one for the Senate version, green for the Arizona House version. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:24, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
The Fox News link of the House version of the bill says that it's unofficial, so I think I don't need to add the House changes to the bill for now. The Arizona Bill on on this website where I told you has some changes additions to the bill has many spelling and phrase mistakes, so I didn't add much of the changes I saw there to the Conservapedia article except for page 17. Let me know your thoughts and opinions. God bless you. Willminator 17:05, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Will, the final link I gave you IS the final version, the Enrolled/Engrossed bill. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:58, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

I made all the changes you told me. Check it out and tell me what you think, so I can finally upload my video to youtube. God bless you. Willminator 8:11, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
Breaking news!!! I made some minor changes to the video and now, I just uploaded the video to youtube. Check it out!!! [12] I thank you very much for your help. Put the video up on Conservapedia's breaking news section. God bless you. Willminator 21:11, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

MrBurnsExcellent.gif --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:33, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Schrödinger's equation

I thought it was a matter of style, having an umlaut in the article's title Schrödinger's equation or Schrödinger equation could cause some problems in search engines (because Windows renders ö in a different way than Unicode-using operational systems). Sunda62 10:09, 30 June 2010 (EDT)


Nice page! Don't forget Michael Moore and the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) EMorris 18:04, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

Good Point

Ah, you're probably right about Michael Moore. I was thinking along the lines of how his propaganda may have influenced those who blindly agreed with Obama Care and other harmful policies. Still, it's certainly a helpful category to have! RaymondP 22:21, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

I understood your thinking, just want to avoid over-use of the category, is all. What with the really dangerously deranged people out there like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Fife, Moore pales by comparison! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:24, 30 June 2010 (EDT)


What category does Category:Bias in Wikipedia belong in? Ctown200 16:39, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

Tulip mania

Should the tulip mania article be deleted? I didn't realize the creator of it was using a good ISP to troll, so I copy edited it and all that. I think it's a good point to make (the idea of focusing too much on one thing and creating a baseless economy) but I wanted some experienced input on it before I marked it for deletion (or didn't mark it, whatever the case). Thanks! Tyler Zoran Talk 21:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

I left it, and there was no way for you to know where that user was editing from, Tyler. It should be under the category "flowers", IMO. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:17, 6 July 2010 (EDT)
I added flowers along with two other relevant categories (economics and Netherlands). Thanks again! Tyler Zoran Talk 10:58, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Request to move an article

Hi TK, Could you move Barbican to USS Barbican? I reworded the current article (Barbican) that dealt with the ship, but once the move is complete, I'm going to straighten up the links more and create the page on the castle defensive structure that's currently listed on the disambiguation page? Thank you! Tyler Zoran Talk 10:55, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Thank you!

for the recognition. I try to do my best to help out. ... and thank you for fitting it into my user page with far more aesthetic skill that I know how. :) Tyler Zoran Talk 20:57, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Fan Club

You're my favorite admin. --Ed Poor Talk 09:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed. And verse-vicea as well! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)


Thanks for fixing and blocking my old account! I'll try not to forget the password again! --MarcoT2 09:08, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Wow, it really doesn't take much time to clean up those vandals' mess.

The wiki system works! Tisane 20:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Somewhat, I suppose. On a wiki the size of this one, no. On Wikipedia, even with 1000 times the admins, it is a never-ending chore, 24/7.--ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:05, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
Or, if not 24/7, at least 16/7 or 18/7 (since editing is disabled at night) Tisane 22:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
Oh....I wasn't clear, which happens, I meant that sort of deal, 24/7 was a given on Wikipedia, not here..... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:09, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome!

Have a wonderful remainder of your day! --AbbieM 20:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

I sure will. Thanks for calling attention to your presence! Godspeed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:49, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Is the welcome/ please read the editing rules a stock message, or did I accidentally break a rule?--Manhattan

Stock, lol. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:30, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

Here's the "bad" template:


Other states’ immigration policies vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070

Hello TK, how are you doing? So I’ve heard that other states may have stricter, harsher policies against illegal immigration than what Arizona’s new enforcement law against illegal immigration, Would it be a good idea if I add a section on the article on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 about other states’ immigration policies? So you have any information I could use regarding other states’ immigration laws? God bless… Willminator 9:33, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

I have been thinking about this, Will, and I agree, yes you should add and perhaps we need to re-name the article....something less cumbersome, like "Arizona's 2010 Immigration Act" or the like, which will more readily identify what it is about. You should also have a subheader about those states that have joined with Arizona in suing the Federal Government. Let me know your thoughts. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:34, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Perhaps we should turn the title Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into a redirect if you know what I mean. So, there are 2 subheaders that talk about Mexico’s and our Federal immigration policies. I believe that there should be a new subheader that talks about other states’ current immigration policies that may be much harsher and stricter than Arizona’s 2010 Immigration Act. By the way, on the section titled Some Questions to Challege Liberals, I added this question to liberals: “Did you know that there are other states that have tougher immigration policies than Arizona's new act on illegal immigration? Why do you only criticize Arizona, but not other states for their much harsher immigration policies?”
I also agree with you that there should be another subheader that lists all the states that have joined with Arizona in suing the Federal Government. Of course, all these new changes mean that I may have to take down my current youtube video about the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article and put up a new updated youtube video. Well, I guess we got a lot of work to do. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks for your help. Willminator 10:53, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
If I move the article to re-name it, the wiki will automatically add a redirect for us. Since you seem to be okay with moving it, I will go ahead and do that now, Will. Send me your thoughts about organization and what have you, and we can discuss. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:43, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
As you might know, there are 2 sections in the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article called “U.S immigration policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070” and “Mexico's immigration policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070.” Below those 2 sections I’d like to add 2 more sections. One section would be called “Other States’ Immigration Policies vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070” and in that section there would be some subsections (one for each state) talking about some of those states whose immigration policies may be tougher and stricter than Arizona’s 2010 Immigration Act. I looked around on google and youtube and I can't find any good links that talks about states' with tough immigration policies, so please help me out if you have any information on this. The other section I don’t know how I would name it, but it will list those states that have joined with Arizona in the fight against the Federal government’s lawsuit of Arizona. Before listing those states that have joined Arizona in the fight, there will be a brief background about the Federal lawsuit against Arizona. Anyway, those are my thoughts about the organization. Let me know what you think and let me know about any more information you may have. Also, I saw the Fox News link you gave me. I'll see what I can do with that.
By the way, I’m busy packing my luggages because I’m going overseas tomorrow for about a month to visit family members (aunts, cousins, grandparents, etc.) from my mother’s side and I’m going to visit some friends too, and at the same time I'll get a much needed vacation. I’m going to the Dominican Republic, which is where my mother is from. So, please help me out with the ideas I just gave you while I’m gone because I’ll probably not be on the computer that much while I'm down there. God bless you. Willminator 13:21, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Will do....and have a great vacation! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:48, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

I already added the new section called "Other States Immigration Policies vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070," but the section is empty, so you can help me add information while I'm gone. Willminator 23:11, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Just wondering...

I noticed you reverted my suggestion of "carpetbagger" as a candidate for "Best new conservative words." Did I unwittingly step over a line? If you could explain why it was inappropriate so I can avoid making similar errors in the future, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Benp 16:01, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Ben, your post evidently got tossed with the garbage of a troll I removed. I am very sorry! Please re-ad it if you like. I'll try to be more careful. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:09, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
No problem at all! I understand that sometimes, with the sheer volume of cleanup that needs to be done, accidents happen. Thanks for the clarification! --Benp 16:43, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Edit #

First thing in my recent changes list. 25K+. NICE. Tyler Zoran Talk 07:47, 25 July 2010 (EDT)


I'm sorry. I don't really understand your last message, but if it's pertaining to my Darthipedia, I've listed my concerns here. Cheers! Graestan 14:44, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

I suppose that is the case, given the evidence of your deceit. Godspeed. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:47, 26 July 2010 (EDT)


Hey, my original account got banned for not using my real name (it's paranoia, don't ask.) Is there any way to get all of my edits recredited to my new account? --BrandonLyall 18:35, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Not paranoia, CP prefers real first names and last initials instead of the name/number combination vandals and trolls usually pick. I just blocked you by mistake, but have removed your blocks. Spend some time reading the provided links in your welcome message and most of your questions as to why we do what we do will be answered, Brandon. Yes, your previous account can be combined to include your past edits...simply pick a new user name (perhaps "BrandonL") and post to user talk: Aschlafly requesting that Gama be unblocked and moved to that new name. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:43, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Sorry I flew all over the place. I didn't mean to do that; getting blocked twice in a day is a little hard to take on all at once. Oh, and I tried to create the account under "BrandonL", but it was already in use. --BrandonLyall 18:49, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
Unfortunately the Wikimedia software doesn't permit moving your history to a user name already created. How about this account, but adding your middle initial as well? Think about it, and then post to Mr.Schlafly's page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:56, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
What if some nut goes out there, thinks I'm another misinformed false sockpuppet, and bans me? Is there a way to delete my account so I can create the new one?--BrandonLyall 19:06, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
LOL! By now they have all read this, and so don't worry about things that have yet to happen......--ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm blocked for Using anonymous proxy

Hi, TK. You blocked my account User:Ty for Using anonymous proxy. I created this User:Ty2 account for the sole purpose of getting the block lifted, if possible. I found this the easier option.

Until today, I had no idea of what the word proxy meant in relation to computers. Now I have read the article proxy, and that's all I know about it.

  • I wouldn't know how to use a proxy, even if I wanted to.
  • I wouldn't know how to distinguish if I'm using a proxy or not.
  • I don't know if I'm using a proxy right now, or not.
  • I wouldn't know how to avoid using a proxy, if I needed to.

I have edited Conservapedia from home and from perhaps as many as seven different public computers. I don't remember the exact details, and my memories are even more blurry because of the many times I tried to edit but was not able to (I could only "view the source").

If editing Conservapedia requires technical knowledge such as recognizing proxies, then I wouldn't be able to. However, this was never an issue when editing Wikipedia (whose use and abuse of NPOV made me look for alternatives). I hope knowing about proxies isn't indispensable here. Thanks. --Ty2 13:26, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

No technical knowledge is required...but tell me, is Buenos Aires really your home? For the sake of your privacy, my email is given on my user page, right at the top. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:38, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
No, it isn't. I live over 400 miles away from it. I was unable to reply sooner because I could only "view the source". --Ty2 16:42, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
Well try the email (its on my user page, at the top), and we will see if we can find a solution. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

Email block

How do I do the email block? I feel like I'm always leaving something half done and you have to finish up for me! DanielPulido 01:40, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Not at all,'re doing great. It's something only admins can do (there are still one or two things only we can do), otherwise you guys would obviate the need for us! :P --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:43, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Vandalism and kittens

I was thinking where we have the rule on vandalism, it should also say "Every time the Wiki is vandalized, Jesus kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens." If a potential vandal sees that and is a good Christian, that would drive them away from vandalizing. This is just an idea, so please don't shoot me. (JlHawkwell 21:25, 2 August 2010 (EDT))

That's so silly! --Ed Poor Talk 18:42, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Hair today, gone tomorrow

Hey, TK, I like that picture of Dylan so much I couldn't resist editing the image page. --Ed Poor Talk 18:44, 10 August 2010 (EDT) seems to have worked...but don't ask me to explain it! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:15, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

I'm back

Hello TK, I'm back to the U.S from my vacation in the D.R. It's nice to be back in the land of air condition. I tried to log in to Conservapedia one time while I was gone, but I was blocked by someone for Santo Domingo proxy and a few of the most recent edits I did were reverted and I also couldn't edit because of that. I don't know what Santo Domingo proxy means. Anyway, I'm ok now. I see that not a lot of changes were made to my my Arizona immigration bill article while I was gone. No one helped me out by anything about other states' more stricter's immigration laws and states that joined Arizona in their law suit against the Federal government. By the way, how did that turn out? Did the Federal government or Arizona win? Willminator 2:46, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your welcome!

I've tried to make my first article, Confessions, about the great book by Saint Augustine. (When writing it I discovered that Church fathers is still a red-link! In a way it's nice to know there is so much of God's work still to be done here...) I hope it reaches the quality standards for this site. God bless, JReynolds 21:38, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

All bold?

Did you have to crow about your victory with an all-bold headline within minutes of the announcement? Ha ha ha. Congratulations.--Andy Schlafly 23:33, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

No big win for Conservatives, no matter who would have won, I think. So long as a person is anti-abortion, and is a Christian, are the main concerns of both of us, so I think we both won! Of course McCain's penchant for spending will never change.... ;-) I'm thankful I didn't attend the Hayworth "victory" party tonight, lol. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:24, 25 August 2010 (EDT)


Thanks for unblocking me and welcoming me to the site. CharlieJ 01:02, 9 September 2010 (EDT)

Re:Qaisar Bagh

Dear TK, if you look at my edit history, all of the articles that I have created are my work on Wikipedia. In other words, I researched and wrote the same articles on Wikipedia. You may add the templates indicating that I did so to the articles I created. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:53, 17 September 2010 (EDT)


Dear TK, there is a misspelling in one of the article titles that I created. Could you please move HIndki --> Hindki? Thanks in advance, AnupamTalk 19:23, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Done. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:30, 19 September 2010 (EDT)
Thanks! --AnupamTalk 19:34, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Is someone trying to bait me???

Hello TK, how do you know that since I created “User:Willminator Is there anyone in the media (including Fox News) who takes an uncompromising Biblical stance in a 6 literal day, recent creation?,” someone named Jayne Rodgers has been emailing me? By the way, someone named Jeff Travolieri has emailed me too. What do they fear about my question that they would take action against me? Why am I being targeted? Are Jayne Rodgers and Jeff Travolieri Conservapedia users? By the way, if you know of any news anchors, journalists, reporters, and analysts who take a belief in a 6 literal day recent creation, contact them and let me know please. This is something very important for me to know. In fact, I'm going to email Fox News first to find out. By the way, email me at so I can foward you what these lunatics are emailing me about.

By the way, on my Arizona Senate Bill 1070 article, there’s a section called “Other States' immigration policies vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070” that’s empty so far and needs to be filled out. I need help with that section. Also, please tell me the states that had joined with Arizona in the lawsuit against the federal government. Take care and God bless you. Willminator 23:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

Their goal is to get you (and others) to make posts like the one you just did, calling attention to their trolling. They might have a thousand names, but in reality the work is of just a handful with dozens of user names each. I am sorry to report asking for enlightened contributions from others will only net you even more trolls and vandals. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:07, 23 September 2010 (EDT)
I believe you deleted my previous point here. I was simply asking for your help in fighting these trolls and I was simply telling you what these trolls were doing to me. God bless... Willminator 09:09, 26 September 2010 (EDT)

It's a big story re: global warming

It's a big story, but thanks for removing the unintended duplication!--Andy Schlafly 16:53, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

The only "big stories" I want to see are about Socialism, Big Spending and Obama corruption. At least until November 2nd !  ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:26, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Can I get help?

I'd really like some help getting that Bias in Wikipedia article finished. I'm not sure where to post this question, so I put it a few places. Ctown200 14:11, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

I didn't know he was an admin. Where can I get help with this project? I have asked, and no one even bothers to ansser. Ctown200 20:36, 8 November 2010 (EST)
From what I have read, you have had several "answers", but perhaps it is a matter of you not liking them? The article about Wikipedia bias will never be done so long as they accept mob rule there, IMO. If you were to post on the article's talk page where you intend to start, and then actually start, when you have the time to start, that would be of help and others might be more interested in helping once the arguments with others subside. This week is pretty busy for me, but I will sort through the talk page and see if I can begin to organize the page with more clarity....I assume that is what you are after? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:20, 8 November 2010 (EST)

Bible course in education index

Hi TK,

While I understand why you removed the Koran lecture (since I didn't get permission ahead of time to start it), why did you remove the Bible course from the educational index? --TeacherEd 09:58, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Sorry, Teach, I am not aware that I did.....please restore the unintentional removal of the Bible course! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:47, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
No problem. However, I am unable to restore the course listing, as it looks like the educational index page is locked down for editing now. --TeacherEd 13:51, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
Done. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:57, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
Thanks TK! --TeacherEd 14:20, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy at "Abortion"

TK, can you do anything about Andy Schlafly over at the Abortion article? He just yanked out a section I'd written, meticulously documented and researched, about reasons for abortion.

That article is FUBAR as it is, very unprofessionally done, looking like a high school student's project done at the last minute. It's chaotic and disorganized and disjointed and cluttered with weirdness. All the Hitler stuff and an ultrasound somebody thinks looks like Jesus. It's an embarrassment. It will do nothing to convert fence-sitters or effectively arm people. And I'm trying to tweak it a little bit at a time to avoid stepping on anybody's toes. That's gonna be hard to do if Andy gets it into his head that he owns the thing and can take out huge sections he doesn't think are as relevant as a single sentence.

I was a professional research writer specifically on the subject of abortion. I researched major chunks of Lime 5. (The entire book was my project in the first place!) I was the Pro Life Guide at I've had years of experience writing professionally about abortion. And if Andy has beefs with edits (especially when I'm not taking anything out), he needs to discuss them in the Talk page, not just nuke my work.CDunigan 22:11, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

Ha. It turns out Andy DOES own the thing, so to speak. Should I just go back to blogging and give up on trying to get the abortion stuff to where it's professionally done and actually organized in a way that people can find the information they need?CDunigan 22:18, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

It takes time to become trusted member of any community, even longer on CP given the world liberals have given us, what with their continual vandalism and insertion of false information. Also please remember we strive for a family-friendly environment, which makes many images dealing with abortion off-limits, not that I saw any of yours that I object to personally. Please do what you can, and I have given you a means to communicate with Mr. Schlafly off-wiki, where away from our enemies you can discuss. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 23:18, 24 October 2010 (EDT)


  • Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.

I attended the Veteran's Day Parade kick-off in NYC this morning. Because I was with the bishop, I got to be in the VIP section. It was nice to meet some Medal of Honor recipients and hear the speeches thanking veterans for their sacrifices. --Ed Poor Talk 15:15, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Yes. I have met literally dozens of MOH winners, and have always been struck with their humility. Without exception all have told me they knew many others who did more than them, or the like. That quote I put on the main page, from the Reagan's really choked me up. It was a message the two of them left at the Vietnam War Memorial one a million others, President Reagan left it there....and as I recall he was crying as he did. Each of us literally owes their life and freedom to those quite ordinary men and women who, when it counted, stepped up and made a difference. God bless them! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:22, 11 November 2010 (EST)

A Problem

Thank you for your helpful suggestion that "If you have a problem, contact an admin." I'm stopping by to point out that the user Martyp is an obvious parodist, as evidenced by his adding the tag "pseudoscience" to the relativity article. Thanks for your attention to this issue. --AndyP 18:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Your edit comment was contrary to the high standards of this site, and the limited block was generous. If you think Martyp is an "obvious parodist," then that should be easy for you to demonstrate in a substantive manner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 18:54, 28 November 2010 (EST)
Well, parody is something where it's hard to point to a single edit as evidence, but I would note the relativity edit as well as his work on the McChrystal article that was reverted by TK. I think it is necessary to take a holistic approach to parody, and a reading of his contributions makes his intentions clear.
In fact, I would like to offer my services as a parody detector at this site, by tagging users with "Category:Parodists Outed by AndyP". I know that the administration has struggled to detect even the most obvious parodists in the past (Wuhao, Jacob, and many others) , and I would have exposed these users far earlier than the existing mechanisms did (i.e. not at all, until they confessed). There are a number of users currently here with elevated rights who I can say with >99.9% certainty are up to no good. --AndyP 19:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)
AndyP, I have a better idea: how about making more substantive contributions yourself? An editor can have many substantive contributions while also attempting occasionally to be funny in an unacceptable edit. But I haven't seen many substantive edits by you yet ....--Andy Schlafly 19:56, 28 November 2010 (EST)
It was your own edit comments, AndyP, that smacked of parody, and what attracted my attention....and low and behold you have attracted the attention of Mr. Schlafly as well...not a good sign. Liberals just fail miserably at mocking conservatives. As proof I offer all the users I have ever blocked (a considerable number) against your detections. In fact I think it is highly probable you are both users. This is the end of this discussion. At least here. Do as Mr. Schlafly suggests, and if you post here again, make sure it is about another matter. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Create a link

Would you please make a link from High school algebra to Algebra? We "civilians" aren't supposed to do this. The first term was used by Ed Poor on his talk page, and I'm sure that he wanted it to refer to the existing Algebra article. I fully agree with his intentions here—it should be under both names. SamHB 23:52, 1 December 2010 (EST)

Done. You should feel free to create redirects as you need to, Sam. It is just with our vandalism problem, we like to protect redirects, is all. If you make one, just let me or another Admin know so we can protect them...thus limiting the chaos a vandal might do. ;-) - --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:19, 2 December 2010 (EST)


Hopefully in your "down time" you can tend to lesser known vandal sites, people who are quite obviously traitors. Anything is possible. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:17, 3 December 2010 (EST)

I urge you to feed them the poison pill...they will take it readily.--ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:22, 9 December 2010 (EST)

Use of Thomas Paine quotes

Thomas Paine

Just wondering why you are quoting Thomas Paine when he can also be quoted to be extremely hostile towards the church and the bible, as stated in these quotes from The Age of Reason.

"People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?" - The Age of Reason, Part 2, 1795

"Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." - Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, Part 1

"Whenever we read the obscene stories the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon rather than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel." - Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, Part 1

Im just curious because I do not believe it is appropriate for Conservapedia to be using quotes from Thomas Paine when he clearly detests the church and the teachings of the Bible. I am not trying to troll, just looking for an answer.--pacta sunt servanda 12:39, 5 December 2010 (EST)--[[User:americanatheist|americanatheist][ 12:39, 5 December 2010 (EST)

Well, since you say you are not "trying" to troll, I will give you the courtesy of a reply! Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, or in this case a quote (and that quote is in dispute as being from Paine) is just a well-turned phrase, and means more about what it says than who it is from. As for Paine, many historical figures have said lots. And of course since living a life entails changing one's mind occasionally if not often, they often times seem contradictory in their beliefs. Even Jesus Christ questioned God, the Father at one point. But then you already must know that.... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:01, 5 December 2010 (EST)
I see that you were requested back in January to ask for a less confrontational user name, and ignored it. Accordingly I have blocked your user name, but didn't block account creation or your IP, so you can email and reference this old name, requesting a new account. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:12, 5 December 2010 (EST)
AA was just posing as someone "trying to help", but was actually making a false point. It's actually a very telling slip, because it reveals something about liberal psychology.
Liberals base everything on authority, and nothing on the concept that observations must conform to reality. AA was trying to tell us that Tom Paine was a discredited authority, and then tempting us to stop citing him. But we don't buy in to the idea that a criticism here invalidates an observation there. His ideas about possible flaws in the way people believe or practice religion, have no bearing on his ideas about patriotism. --Ed Poor Talk 20:18, 17 January 2011 (EST)
Amen! --Joaquín Martínez 22:31, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Merry Christmas!!!

Merry Christmas y feliz navidad para toda tu familia... --Joaquín Martínez 13:06, 24 December 2010 (EST)