User talk:VargasMilan

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


Hello, VargasMilan, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, VargasMilan!

ṬK/Admin/Talk 07:52, 1 January 2010 (EST)


re: Atheism article

If you want to replace the bare link footnotes of the Atheism article with more descriptive non-bare links, that would be most welcome. I am involved in some major projects right now and I am pressed for time. Conservative 13:00, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

Okay, I'll do some more then. VargasMilan 16:01, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
Thanks. Much appreciated. Conservative 16:26, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
Thank you again for all your work on the atheism article. It's appearance looks noticeably better plus it is more informative. Conservative 00:43, 15 January 2015 (EST)
You're welcome. I also like the article and appreciate all the research you've done for it. VargasMilan 00:47, 15 January 2015 (EST)
Thanks. I don't think I would do the research again. Atheism is a rather stale topic and its prospects in terms of adherents looks poor in the 21st century. I agree with John Updike who said, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position." If I knew the New Atheism was just a fad, I wouldn't have bothered. In hindsight, it has a lot of indicators that it was merely a fad.
My research had a The Bridge on the River Kwai/Gestalt principle like element to it. Once I started the task, I wanted to finish it. :) Conservative 01:13, 15 January 2015 (EST)
You gathered in one place a lot of supporting evidence that otherwise would have been scattered all over the internet and of limited use. I think you deserve a kudos for that. VargasMilan 01:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I did put a fly in the evangelical/militant atheist soup by putting this evidence together in one place. And a good Christian apologetics team has both an offense/defense (Saying why other worldviews are wrong and why Christianity is correct). So some good came out of it. But there is the issue of the opportunity cost. I could have used the time to advance other causes (Christian evangelism, anti-slavery efforts, anti-poverty efforts, etc. etc.). If you look HERE and HEREand HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and at the global atheism article, it does seem like atheism is losing steam in the world, the US, the UK and Australia in recent years.
Part of this downward trend is due to Christian efforts and a lot of it is due to atheists shooting themselves in the foot through their ill behavior and infighting (see: Atheist movement and Elevatorgate). In addition, the more we know about the physical world and about the nature of man, the less plausible atheism is. In addition, the atheist community has largely allied itself with the left end of the political spectrum and in recent years, the left has not fared very well. And high sovereign debt around the world in developed countries, makes the left's prospects dimmer. Austerity measures are often not something a country chooses. It is something that is forced upon them. And austerity measures and leftism are not a good match. Conservative 17:01, 15 January 2015 (EST)

I just noticed something. If you look at those graphs, you will see that upward part of the graphs correlate with the rise of New Atheism and the political left (Obama, etc. etc.), but the descent of the graphs is correlated with the fall of the New Atheism and the political left losing favor. I didn't notice the political aspect until just now. Christendom has a higher degree of diversity in terms of politics due to its high geographic diversity. Like I am politically to the right within the multiple Christian editors of User: Conservate-ism and politically to the right of former admin Philip Rayment for example. Conservative 17:20, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Great job and small request

You are doing a superb job as far as the atheism footnotes.

I have a small request as far as the atheism article footnotes. For various reasons, I try to keep all the links on the page highly relevant. Like all the links going to the specific source pages. So if you could avoid the links going to the home pages of the news websites (or other websites), I would appreciate it.

The article is going to look fantastic when the footnoting is finished and it will be more helpful to readers as well. Conservative 21:28, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

Okay, I'll compress them if you like. Thanks for the compliments. VargasMilan 21:40, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
OK, I just compressed one. The footnote to the Marxism website. You can see what I did. Conservative 21:59, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

re: two other articles

After you finish footnoting the atheism article, consider footnoting the evolution and homosexuality articles because those articles are popular articles too. Conservative 20:11, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

Thank you. VargasMilan 20:05, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

footnotes - atheism article

The only reason I changed one of the footnotes in the article is because I found a better source. Your footnoting is excellent and makes the article more user friendly which is important. Conservative 17:29, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

Thank you, I was just about to ask you about that change. And thank you for the compliments. VargasMilan 17:33, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
The Evolution article is probably the most popular article on this website. And the topic is related to atheism too. Would you like to do the footnoting for the evolution article too? Conservative 21:43, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
That one is very long. I would prefer to work on some of the smaller "Liberal characteristics and traits" articles first. VargasMilan 00:01, 29 July 2014 (EDT)
OK. There is an article which has under 50 footnotes and over 1,000,000 page views. The liberal article. This would be an excellent candidate to do better footnoting. Conservative 01:46, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

spammer on the loose

See Recent changes at 23:52. SamHB 00:16, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure you do have blocking powers. Did Andy not congratulate you? SamHB 01:32, 28 September 2014 (EDT)
We now have confirmation direct from Andy. It's on my talk page. Go have a look. He appreciates your work. (As do I.) SamHB 01:01, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

News maybe?

I found this article on mentioning 6 studies that proves that not all fields of science are trustworthy and that some scientists will do what they can to get more funds for their "research". I'm not 100% sure if it's trustworthy, but maybe after proofreading it you guys could use this in your news or global warming article somewhere. MontanaMax 01:20, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll look into it. But how do you think we would look linking to Cracked on the front page? VargasMilan 01:25, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
I guess I understand, but its rare to see a usually liberal/gray site admit something like this. MontanaMax 01:28, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
They also did a piece something like "10 things you didn't know about life behind the iron curtain" featuring a writer who lived in Romania. VargasMilan 01:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
I suggest you be vigilant with the main page as some may try to vandalize it with crude drawings using this "hidden" graffiti program -> Vandals use it all the time on major sites. -MontanaMax 16:54, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

If you like doing administrative tasks

If you like doing administrative tasks, there are a lot of orphan pages that need to be linked to from other pages. You can find the list of them here: Conservative 16:14, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

I started the work by deorphanizing the African Burial Ground article. Conservative 16:23, 11 October 2014 (EDT)


Thanks for calling that missing counterexample to my attention, and thereby (that means "because of what preceded"  :-) keeping the numbering consistent. I'll get on it when I have the time. It will be a fairly straightforward one. In fact, there have been very few truly original "counterexamples" lately. I will try to eschew sesquipedalian expressions, and generally avoid "a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind"  :-) Though such disdain is often hard to avoid on that page  :-) SamHB 12:13, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

There's a lot to be said for self-confidence I suppose. Have at it. VargasMilan 13:09, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

another spammer on the loose

Check RC. I'm sure you would have noticed it pretty soon. SamHB 15:30, 30 November 2014 (EST)

Thank you. VargasMilan 15:40, 30 November 2014 (EST)

No hard feelings, I hope?

I really do respect you. And I see that, with your recent edits to the National debt, along with many other things, you really are a subject matter expert, and willing to use that expertise. There are a lot of people that just fix punctuation and stuff, in what appears to be just an attempt to curry favor.

Now if I could just figure out what "withering patrician disdain" means!

SamHB 00:08, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Do a search of the phrase in Conservapedia! It's one of Conservative's favorite quotes. You'll see who the original missive was actually aimed at without the substitution of your name. VargasMilan 00:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)
My goodness, you're right! I hadn't thought of that. Amazing. The way so much of his garbage writing is. SamHB 00:40, 1 December 2014 (EST)

Proper use of mainpage talk

OK, I'm going to follow your example, and try to get people to use main talk for discussion of the main page content only, and the community portal for general discussion, flaming, arguing, etc. We'll see how that goes. Maybe people are just too set in their ways, and they'll go back to the old way.

By the way, I have a vague recollection of someone fixing the lose vs. loose error recently, and I think it was you. If so, thank you. I fear that I am loosing my mind over this. SamHB 17:31, 6 December 2014 (EST)

The switch over to the community portal seems to be going extremely well. I'm pleased that something I did is already getting people to use the right page. By the way, at the very bottom you will see a note by me about a user ("TheonlySIL", or whatever) that really, really, really desires to be blocked. Just sayin' SamHB 21:51, 6 December 2014 (EST)


Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: The collaborative project. Conservative 22:04, 25 December 2014 (EST)


Thank you for your edits. Don't you think that this edit [3] was rather rambling to the point of distracting the reader from what we are trying to say? Could you please consider rewriting it for clarity? I think the reader can get the idea without a parody of the blog's writing style. Many thanks, Wschact 01:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Your edit improves things. It would be my preference to have moved the discussion to a general overview article like Survivalism and the long quote to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, but I am dropping my concerns. Again, many thanks, Wschact 01:53, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Conservative vouched for this person.

Could you give me a link to this? Thanks. --AugustO 01:50, 14 January 2015 (EST)

They edited together consecutively within the space of one or two minutes. VargasMilan 01:55, 14 January 2015 (EST)
Sorry, I didn't know that not objecting to means vouching for. --AugustO 02:00, 14 January 2015 (EST)

I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you

I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you.Conservative 05:20, 21 March 2015 (EDT)

Account promoted

Your account has been promoted to make it easier for you to revert edits, and also for you to have night editing. Congratulation!

Thank you, Andy! I appreciate it. VargasMilan 22:57, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

Fixed typo on main page

I fixed the typo on the main page. Thanks. Conservative 03:20, 31 March 2015 (EDT)


I don't understand ...

Why do you keep reverting my edits to the Obama and Unemployment page? We all know that unemployment has fallen (albeit with a lowering workforce participation), why shouldn't the article reflect that?

I updated the Barack Obama and United States Unemployment article

I updated the Barack Obama and United States Unemployment article. Conservative 15:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

I just sent you an email

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. Conservative 18:18, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I sent you a reply regarding what you said in your e-mail. VargasMilan 19:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
OK. I just sent you a followup email. Conservative 20:30, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
Thank you. I will check into those to see if there's anything I've missed from my own research. VargasMilan 20:40, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
OK. I just sent you a final email to tie things up as far as our recent discussions. Conservative 05:24, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

Inserting false information

When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. Burke39 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.Burke39 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Well the CNN article was one. I just remember there being a number of problems. I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.
When you asked about edits to the LDS article, I thought you were referring to the talk page, but in the article you made a mistake there too that I noted in the edit summary. VargasMilan 00:29, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
But thank you for your positive contributions. VargasMilan 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. Burke39 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
You were behaving like a liberal spammer. The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.
As for the comment, I'd just be speculating. It was User:Conservative who said it. VargasMilan 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I think it might have been because of edits like this,[4], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [5]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [6], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. Burke39 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization. Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag. Beginning with Havelock Ellis. VargasMilan 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. Burke39 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Christian Science

[7] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. Burke39 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. VargasMilan 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. Burke39 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? VargasMilan 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. Burke39 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. VargasMilan 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). Burke39 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Soviet Union

The article about the Soviet Union,[8], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? Burke39 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. VargasMilan 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.Burke39 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
You readied it? VargasMilan 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. Burke39 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! VargasMilan 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Re: Atheism and intolerance

If you want to review the article Atheism and intolerance and fix any grammatical/formatting errors, it would be appreciated.

More work on the footnoting of the article is going to be done by the User: Conservative account this coming weekend. Conservative 23:12, 17 May 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the work you did so far on the article. Much appreciated. Conservative 04:16, 18 May 2015 (EDT)
You're welcome. I did some more footnoting for the article. VargasMilan 03:54, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
Thanks for footnoting the entire article. Your assistance is much appreciated. Conservative 19:01, 20 May 2015 (EDT)


for showing me (by example in the Ronald Reagan page) how to group multiple references together. Our little dust-up over the number 111 would not have happened if I had read them all. Sorry about that. Be that as it may, I'm using that technique in the Robert Dicke page. SamHB 22:17, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

You're welcome. There's a tutorial page on Conservapedia that I learned it from, but I don't where that page is now. VargasMilan 01:15, 21 May 2015 (EDT)
You also have the problem of not being able to find your way around the help pages? I can never find the really tricky things. I know how to use square brackets and double single quotes and stuff, but I can never remember complicated things like footnotes and tables, so I usually try to find a page that has it, and copy it. So, I've been using a page of handwritten notes. I finally typed it in. It's How_to_put_links_and_footnotes_into_your_articles. Enjoy. SamHB 23:03, 23 May 2015 (EDT)


The reason I called your edit malicious is that it is not true that I was just sneaking in previous material. I rewrote the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph yet again. Your edit comment said that I was just doing the same thing again. I wasn't. You need to read edits before you just blindly revert them. The same thing goes for your earlier reversion, when you put a redundant pair of sentences back in. You need to pay attention. Many aspects of your recent behavior suggest that you are allowing some kind of personal vendetta to negatively impact your contributions to CP.

So now let's go through the Cockcroft/Walton paragraph paragraph in detail:

"In 1932 an English and an Irish physicist, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton ...."

Do you dispute their nationality? Do you dispute that it was a nuclear transmutation? Do you dispute that it was the first? Do you dispute that they won the Nobel Prize for it?

"their pioneer work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei ...."

Do you dispute that the Nobel announcement said that?

"This experiment is replicated ... hundreds of times each year."

(That comment, in fact almost all of this paragraph was written by AugustO, as part of his battle with Andy, not by me. AugustO and I have been fighting over this in email.)

Do you dispute that the experiment is frequently replicated?

"Neither the Nobel Committee nor the prize recipients made any claim to verify ....."

(This is the thing I was specifically trying to clarify) Do you dispute that verifying E=mc^2 was the not the goal of either the experiment or the Nobel Committee?

"... the equation had already been known and understood for many years ..."

Do you dispute that? Atomic weights and mass defects ("packing fractions") had been known since the early 30's. Do you dispute that? Can you explain, in your own words, how the awareness of atomic weights and mass defects evolved in the early decades of the 20th century?

"analysis of the experiment does in fact verify the equation."

Do you dispute that? Did you read AugustO's explanation? Have you looked at a table of atomic weights?

SamHB 23:41, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

You accuse me of being malicious and destructive? You suddenly level accusations of negligence on my part and just as suddenly declare the accusations to be settled. Is that how carelessly you treat the truths of science as well?
Here's another example: AugustO and Andy are discussing the nature of the verification of the equation. Andy says "Do you really think that one experiment from long ago "proved" the formula as a fundamental law of nature?" Then you rush in all of a sudden to make sure that there is a statement in the article that insists the equation is already "verified"—while the meaning of that verification is simulataneously being discussed! Is that how you treat the truths of science, by judging the ones to be true as those belonging to whomever can cram in their assertions first?
Here's a third example: Once you can't cram in your assertions the first, you label my actions malicious and destructive as if I were harming the article, but really I'm just harming your ability to gain the upper hand. You immediately turn and chop the statement I was objecting to into pieces in fatuous eagerness to pursue an effort to pick my brain to see where you can gain the advantage against Andy in other ways. Is that how you treat the truths of science, that that science should be whatever is left over after one person carries out an effort to argumentively overpower another and that might makes right science? VargasMilan 00:14, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

sent you an email

I sent you an email. Please check your email.

Spacetime, and curvature thereof.

OK, accept your latest version. In fact, I just made an edit that made no change at all to the article, but had the edit comment "I accept that. So we're OK, right?". But the oh-so-smart wiki software apparently drops any edit that makes no changes to the text. So I'm telling you here.

Peace. SamHB 15:04, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

re: Militant atheism article


Could you please condense the amount of footnotes appearing the first paragraph of the article militant atheism. Like the first sentence ends in 6 footnotes which looks horrible. That is too many and is distracting. I know there is a way to have the same number of footnotes appearing at the bottom, but just have the number of footnotes appearing in the text be less. Conservative 15:40, 25 June 2015 (EDT)

That looks like an interesting article. Are you going to promote it soon? If it is urgent I can do some work on it, but I am actually on vacation until Tuesday. Don't hesitate to respond via e-mail if you need to and take care. VargasMilan 02:32, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
It is not urgent and can wait until Tuesday. It is a nice article. At this time, I have some things to attend to so I don't have any plans to promote the article soon. Conservative 07:33, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
Don't forget about tidying up the opening sentence of militant atheism so it doesn't appear as if there are 6 footnotes for that sentence in the text for that sentence. You can have 6 footnotes show up after someone clicks the footnote, but I don't want so many footnotes appearing in the sentence when you first read it. Thanks again for all your assistance. Conservative 21:05, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

Actually, I just want the footnoting for the first sentence of the article militant atheism fixed so it appears as if there are 1-3 footnotes at first glance. Of course, once they click a footnote, it can consist of more than one footnote at the bottom of the page.

You can keep the rest of the footnoting of the article the same. Just fix the first sentence.

Again, thanks for all your assistance. Conservative 22:57, 3 July 2015 (EDT)

Is the footnoting formatting fix for the first sentence of the militant atheism article an easy fix or is the authors frequent use of a lot of text in his footnotes a big problem as far as fixing the footnoting.
I think 6 footnotes appearing in the text for one sentence is excessive so I want to hide them in the bottom of the page. Ideally, I would want 1-3 footnotes appearing in the body of the text for the first sentence. Conservative 19:48, 5 July 2015 (EDT)
They get recombined with later footnotes, and these later footnotes get connected with still later footnotes, so they and the later footnotes need to be duplicated. I am trying what I think is the fastest way, and that is to work from the bottom up. This isn't some obscure article; it was obviously very well documented by you and others, so I'm sure the effort has high enough priority to be well worth while. VargasMilan 18:04, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
I'm halfway through; it should take three and a half hours at the very most. I'll be able to spend a few hours on them tonight and two hours tomorrow night to take care of whatever's left. VargasMilan 18:13, 7 July 2015 (EDT)
OK. The only reason I want this done is have the first sentence appear as if it has 1 to 3 footnotes. 6 footnotes in the key first sentence does not look attractive. It is OK if those same 6 footnotes appear on the bottom though. For cosmetic reasons, I just want it to be appear as if 1-3 footnotes as far as the first sentence text. Conservative 19:45, 7 July 2015 (EDT)

Hello User:VargasMilan, I am the main author of the militant atheism article and I appreciate your efforts to improve the formatting of the article. In the style that I wrote the article, because some of my references were used throughout the article, one could simply go to the references section and see all the specific locations in the article where one reference was being used. I am concerned that one may no longer be able to do this with your new formatting. I am okay with User:Conservative's wish to have references combined only in the introduction of the article. However, in the rest of the article, I think it would be best to have the original formatting restored, so that individuals will be able to locate all the places where one reference is being used. What are your thoughts? With regards, AnupamTalk 17:15, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

I was following Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help#Avoid_multiple_footnotes._Put_all_sources_into_a_single_note. which is a link on the Conservapedia Manual of Style page. I don't think I should have to change them back unless there is an error in the Manual of Style. VargasMilan 17:49, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015 and then another one in August

Another atheism article is coming out probably in July 0f 2015. And then another one in August of 2015. It is going to be a TERRIBLE summer for atheism this year. Conservative 21:06, 28 June 2015 (EDT)

I look forward to seeing them. I hope they will be on more tasteful subjects than bestiality and of more far-reaching significance than something Richard Dawkins said in an elevator. Otherwise, I doubt that they will contribute to it being a terrible summer for atheism. I can't imagine someone accepting Christianity because of someone's crude remark in an elevator. You really can do better than that. SamHB 00:02, 29 June 2015 (EDT)
SamHB, it wouldn't surprise me if you were an atheist and if you edited another wiki whose editors are often obsessed with me.
This discussion has strayed off topic and has been moved to User_talk:SamHB#Another_atheism_article_is_coming_out_probably_in_July_0f_2015_and_then_another_one_in_August
SamHB 02:02, 4 July 2015 (EDT)

Militant atheism and red links in footnotes

I have a dozen plus projects that I have to tackle as soon as possible, but I did make a lot of progress in terms of "dered" linking the red links in the militant atheism footnotes.

If you could finish the "dered" linking the footnotes, the footnotes are good enough at this point. I just wanted to make this excellent article look more visually appealing.

And thanks for all the help you did so far. Much appreciated. I am sure the main author of this article will be very pleased with the assistance you provided. Conservative 02:03, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

You're welcome. Just remove the brackets? VargasMilan 02:04, 8 July 2015 (EDT)
Yes, just remove the brackets. Once the red links are gone, the article will look fantastic. Red links are an eyesore and detract from the appearance an article. I think they should be created only if the editor knows they will be filled in soon. Conservative 02:15, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Militant atheism remaining work

I largely fixed all the red links in the footnotes.

Second, using a dead link checker (see: or ), I found that footnotes 3,44,66,67,85,90,119 and 124 have some dead link issues.

If you could replace the dead links with live links, it would be appreciated.

Thanks for all your assistance so far.Conservative 17:01, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for all your work on the militant atheism article.
There are still a few red links and they are associated with dates. If you know how to get rid of the handful of red links remaining, it would be appreciated.
I am hoping we get the article in perfect shape this month. Conservative 02:28, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

re: final steps for militant atheism article

The main author of the militant atheism article is going to work on the article some more later this month. He likes a lot of the stuff we did.

He put a lot of work into the article and is kind of particular about the article.

Thanks for all your help. And he thanks you as well. Conservative 21:58, 9 July 2015 (EDT)

Conservative and you blocking me.

I do not want to be offensive but every time I come back on here you reblock me. The first time I was unblocked you reblocked me for trolling, but did not specify what you meant by that. The second time I came back Conservative reblocked me for changing the hyphens in my signature on sexuality article talk pages. I do not feel that violated the topic ban in that area, because hyphens surely have nothing to do with the meaning of what I wrote there. Changing my signature is surely not making statements or asking questions of any kind about sexuality.Paul Bustion 15:10, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

Burke39, do not edit any Conservapedia articles related to sexuality and do not edit their talk pages. VargasMilan and I are in agreement that some of the material you created on these topics was errant and we don't want to spend additional time monitoring your edits on topics related to sexuality. Topics related to sexuality are often sensitive and can easily offend readers - especially when they are errant.
Topical areas outside of sexuality are a vast universe of topics. There should be no shortage of contributions you can make to Conservapedia.
VargasMilan and I do not want to discuss this matter with you further. If you want to appeal this matter, please contact the owner of Conservapedia at: User talk:Aschlafly. Conservative 19:53, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

I sent you an email

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. Conservative 18:48, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

Thank you and new atheism article are coming in August and henceforth

Thank you for your continued efforts to footnote that various atheism articles. It is very much appreciated.

Starting in about August/September and henceforth, additional atheism articles will added to Conservapedia. And the new articles will be original content. Conservative 09:45, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

You're welcome. I have profited from reading your articles, and I am sure many others have as well, so I am looking forward to the new ones. VargasMilan 15:08, 28 July 2015 (EDT)


You may wish to look into this individual and their bad faith edit to Creationism FFAF (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Good block

Good recent block based on the similarity of the name. Well done.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (EDT)

Terrific block and reverts

Terrific block and reverts a little while ago!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

You're welcome, Andy. VargasMilan (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2015 (EDT)

re: Humanperson

Humanperson has a permanent topical ban as far as editing atheism/evolution articles and their associated talk pages. Conservative (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

The Pope and Climate Change

I don't really understood why you reverted the section about Pope Francis and his views on climate change for "liberal POV". The Pope has really publicly come out and called for actions to fight climate change. He's made it a big part of his pastoral mission. Whether he's right or wrong to hold those views is another question, of course. But it's not a liberal edit to point out that he holds those views. --Whizkid (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (EDT)

They didn't just do that. VargasMilan (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2015 (EDT)
So, I guess the question is, how do we best edit the section to keep the Pope's views on climate change in, while at the same time, removing whatever bias exists? I can try to make an attempt at it tomorrow, if you'd like.--Whizkid (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
If you're going to try, I think you should notify the user first. VargasMilan (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

re: Brent Bozell

Made the change you requested about Brent Bozell on the main page. Conservative (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Thank you. Bozell somehow has the time to run multiple organizations, and the one you happened to mention there is new to me. VargasMilan (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Marriage article - please explain

Hi Vargas, I'm not sure why you reverted my edits (twice) as you didn't provide an explanation. If you're not happy with the way it's written, why not alter it? If you don't believe that gay marriage is now legal in the United States ... well, I'm afraid it is for the time being. If that changes we can update the article again. Anyway, at least let me know what the issue is so that I may make a better contribution. RyanFT (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

You haven't even read the article you're editing. It says in the first paragraph the only true marriages are between a man and a woman. Secondly, even if you accept a very different definition, the court case that determined that isn't a state law because of the constitutional separation of powers. Finally even if you insist that the court case compels a state law, the law doesn't "legalize" this very different definition of marriage; beforehand it wasn't at all illegal to perform a private ceremony based on it. And frankly you don't seem afraid at all to think about marriage in these strange new ways. In fact you seem eager to assert them as quickly and broadly as possible! VargasMilan (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
Well, given that the section is entitled the "Modern history of marriage law", how would you suggest I re-word my entry to reflect the Supreme Court's decision? I'm sure you'd agree it is a significant enough event to be mentioned in that section of that article. RyanFT (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
The owner of this website noted that the decision is subject to review. It's a significant "event" just as any government overreach is but not necessarily as anything new relating to the definition of marriage. VargasMilan (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2015 (EDT)
In my opinion the Supreme Court decision is noteworthy enough to be included in that section, but so be it. Please note that my other objection was that no explanation for the reversion was offered. That is all. RyanFT (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

National debt of the United States

Somebody has been cutting and pasting the same long list of "See alsos" into a bunch of different articles. I think there is a downside to a long list of weakly connected articles into a "see also" list. First, if an article is already a link in the text of the article, there is no need to also put the link in the "see also" list. Second, there is no relationship between the National Debt of the US and the United Nations or Obama donor list. How can we work out what a good "see also" list should be? Is the test, "a reader would feel cheated if he read the 'see also' article and does not see a clear relationship to the National Debt of the US"? Many thanks JDano (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2016 (EST)

Could you please indicate which items on the "see also" list you view as relevant and which you do not. So far, all you said was that some items on the list were relevant. I then put the list in the correct bullet list format, and you reverted instead of deleting items that you believe are not relevant. So, I deleted what I thought were the worst items, and you deleted it without any comment. What do you think. Thank you. JDano (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2016 (EST)
I had replied at Talk:National debt of the United States. VargasMilan (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2016 (EST)

The political super hurricane that political scientists did not predict

Few, if any, political scientists predicted early on that Donald Trump would be the leading Republican candidate in the 2016 GOP primary.

27 percent of American political scientists believe in the existence of God while 76 percent of American doctors said they believe in God.[1][2]

Compared to medical science which has many effective medicines and surgical procedures, the social science of political science is often unreliable.

See also: Atheism and science.  :)Conservative (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[9]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month. Conservative (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (EDT)


I have once again been shown to be a failure by that compulsive obsessive bot of DanielB. Instead of just wearing the ignominy, I thought I would transfer some of the shame by asking for help from someone who is interested in France and who obviously has Marianne's interests at heart.

So perhaps you could help. I left a red link to Perhaps you could enliven it. There are also very notable Frenchmen within the article: Colbert. Vauban . Perhaps you could also put in a word for the Bay of Biscay whose shores I have enjoyed.
AlanE (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

Top conservatives on Twitter

Thank you for this interesting list. Would it be possible to add a source to the article? If there is no source, perhaps we could add a sentence like, "This list is compiled by Conservapedia editors using the data displayed on each Twitter profile page." JDano (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2016 (EST)

Well, I used to have to drive a long way to work, and I used to listen to conservative talk radio. That, and following through all the same people's Twitter connections to the end, indicated to me who the major conservative Twitter participants were as well as enabling me to make a list of strong candidates for those on the lower and lesser-known ranks as they grow.
Since the "conservative civil war", it was shown that not all people who present themselves to be conservatives are all that committed to the "three legs of the conservative stool" as User:Conservative put it. So you can't always trust what is said on their Twitter profile description and, on the other hand, personally reserved but active conservatives who don't want to either stress ideology and/or be targeted for harassment may not include a profession of conservatism at all.
Besides me, there aren't any other users editing that page. I've tried to keep the criteria, beyond the three legs of the stool, as who is "generally accepted as conservative". It may be easier than it sounds, because most of these same candidates are competitively trying to gain followers by performing concrete acts to advance conservatism.
So all this is to show that the source is, besides me, really the large number of Twitter followers itself, because they tend to become targets and have to defend themselves along the argumentative lines of conservative principles. VargasMilan (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2016 (EST)

Merry Christmas


Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2016 (EST)


You helped make THIS happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "best of the public" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) Conservative (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

Debt bomb under Trump

Ron Paul said the USA is already over the cliff and it is just a matter of time before we hit bottom. I think we will look back and see the 2016 election as "pick your poison." Conservative (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2017 (EST)

Ouch! Let's hope the thriftiness of Trump's Scottish heritage kicks in, like we saw with his cost-saving measures that he extracted from Boeing's manufacture of Air Force One! VargasMilan (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2017 (EST)
Donald Trump is a nationalist and wants to spend a lot on the military. Bill Clinton for all his faults did not put the USA in deeper in debt via big military expenditures. Bill Clinton's administration was responsible for the housing crisis which killed growth and indirectly caused a situation which accumulated debt.
Russia and the USA are spending a lot of money on their respective militaries. It is "cold war light". The truth is that both countries face economic troubles ahead and cannot afford to waste money. Putin out of pride wants to restore a lost empire.
But the lion's share of US federal government debt creation is via entitlements. And Trump has expressed no interest in entitlements reform like social security, etc. Maybe he sees no need to. Maybe he thinks it is not politically possible. It probably is not politically possible. The baby boomer generation seems to have no reluctance to pile on debt and let their posterity pay the consequences.
Maybe Hillary Clinton would have spent as much as Trump if elected. Maybe not.
Trump is not a fiscal conservative though and there will be economic consequences. You cannot ignore basic rules of economics and not pay consequences. You cannot get away with spending more than you intake and get away with it. Conservative (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2017 (EST)
The Cold War was not an active war like the kind we see being completed now. Since 1977, the largest percentage of the GDP spent on defense was 6% from 1983 to 1988. Now it's at 2.8%-3.1%, the smallest since Fiscal Year 2001, ending September 30, 2001. If we're seeing a "cold war light", we should keep in mind the Cold War was pretty light to begin with! Trump also pledged to take the money out of NATO's hide if the alliance doesn't become more financially accountable.
Trump promised repeal and replace of ObamaCare, a program designed to cause government-controlled healthcare with all its attendant waste, abuse and non-market-pressured bureaucracy by using the finance of costly liberal mandates as stepping stones to bankrupt the medical insurance business. It would have been a personal vindication for Hillary if she were the one completing the designs of her HillaryCare project with similar aims she started in the 1990s. The Democrats tried to restructure a large sector of the economy to solve the alleged problem of the medically uninsured, which would have only cost about $60 billion (according to Rush Limbaugh) to give them free insurance without having to change anything.
Trump also promised to make deals with the pharmaceutical industry to get volume discounts where the government pays for their drugs.
I didn't want to jinx the election, but I guess now I can say that Obama destabilized the perceived risk of investment from making everyone wonder what strange liberal policy he would enact next, so there's a good chance we'll see GDP growth that will help reduce the debt.
If we get a wall, we'll also see fewer immigration-related expenses to feed, clothe, school, pay for medicine, jail or give Social Security to these immigrants and their families. VargasMilan (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2017 (EST)

From a material prosperity perspective, I am not hopeful about the Western World/developed world in terms of a 40-50 year forecast. Governments are racking up debt and you have aging populations. And if the developed world has a major problem, it will invariably spill over to the developing world.

On a more positive note, biblical Christianity will gain global market share (see: Growth of evangelical Christianity). Conservative (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (EST)

I just read this: 100% Chance Trump Faces Recession in 2017. I don't think the odds are 100%, but the article is not exactly encouraging. Conservative (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Account promoted

Congratulations, your account has been promoted to include uploading privileges. For uploaded images, please be sure to provide:

  1. Attribution to the license owner, unless it is in the public domain which means it can copied without restrictions (most images taken before 1964 are in the public domain, except as indicated otherwise, and all images before 1923 are in the public domain)
  2. The license type
  3. The source
  4. Categories (Category "Image" and other relevant categories)

Thank you and congratulations again!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2017 (EST)

Thank you, Andy. I've had ideas for a few pictures to use in articles and to replace outdated ones, so I welcome this new access and am humbled as well. I'm familiar with copyright terminology, and your summary of Conservapedia upload policy comes as helpful. Again, thank you! VargasMilan (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2017 (EST)
Congratulations! Keep up the great work! --David B (TALK) 22:56, 7 March 2017 (EST)


After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Expansion of right-wing material on the internet

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century desecularization occurring, the trend is bound to continue. Conservative (talk)

Those top two sites aren't being truthful; neither Alex Jones nor Paul Joseph Watson are conservative.
I saw one of Alex Jones' monologues; the broadcast was recommended as an especially good one. Jones' seemed to me like a minor league version of Limbaugh or Glenn Beck without the sudden reversals. But anyway, I was researching Jones for my list, and the first video I looked at directly from Jones' website answered my question. In the video at one point early on to state premises for some argument, he said, "I'm not a liberal; I'm not a conservative".
Paul Joseph Watson often has keen insight into the misrepresentations of left-wing politicians and their supporters, but he also has a sewer mouth and not just privately like locker-room talk but in interviews about his personal points-of-view conducted for the purpose of placing them on the internet.
If Twitter doesn't shape up, despite hosting many important political figures for years, they will be replaced by Gab. I've read stuff (regarding the bans you mentioned) that claimed Twitter for a long time systematically removed Trump's supporters' tweets. They were removed from the beginning of the comments section and more lower down too, which comports with the type of ban you mentioned (shadow-banning). I also read Twitter used to heavily promote their site's freedom of speech, which makes the individual-banning you also referred to seem so much the more a case of obstinance in the face of superior arguments.
But just because certain people and sites aren't conservative doesn't mean they can't be allies, and I like to think that way as it helps me to stay positive.
Unfortunately, the idea that conservatism is gaining momentum on the internet seems to be being used, true or not, simply as a springboard for Vice to dive into purporting that, in general, it is extremist characters that appeal the most to conservatives. VargasMilan (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
Conservatism is a subset of right-wing. You can be a right-winger without being a conservative.Conservative (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
Ya, but what's your point? All the conservative Democrats died off. Roughly 40% of the nation is conservative and wouldn't find a place in today's Democratic party.
Moderate Democrats ran against Hillary and Obama in the 2008 primaries, but went nowhere.
So much the greater would it be likely that the Democratic party would not support someone belonging to a whole party that was further to the right of these rejected moderates.
Conclusion: About 80% of the Right Wing must be conservative, and non-conservative right-wingers are perceived as extreme [within the bounds of conservatism], or at least strange, by conservatives, to whom extremists really don't appeal.
Secondly, if there were, say, Rockefeller Republicans, they would want to pretend to be mainstream Republicans rather than have their ideas rejected out of hand or declared out-of-range.
Also, there doesn't seem to be any Right-wing extremists [that is, extremism relative to the whole range of political attitudes; a designation shared with radicals or those capable of using unprovoked or planned violence], but the liberal media really needs there to be some. The closest thing to an extremist Right winger today doesn't have to do with having a compulsion to support their ideas by [the aforesaid] extremist measures or taking their ideas to the extreme, but a Right winger who works tirelessly to support the Right wing—an extremist in volume of support rather than in the aforesaid taking of extremist measures or following extremist ideas. Some examples of these extreme measures by Democrats are: voter fraud, unsealing court records of candidates or biased news reporting.
Thirdly, regarding investigating voter fraud, [practically] no one in the Right wing thinks it's a bad thing, but the Left wing will always have someone there to deny it's a problem. Voters pick up on that, and perhaps realize that the Left wing's opposition isn't really based on trying to apply a practice from the consideration of an abstract concept, but [simply on the belief] that it's always profitable for them to play the odds and assume that the devotion to ethics of conservatives and their imitators will nearly always outweigh their own.
And so on with the unsealing of court records and biased news reporting. Due to how outlandish the Left wing's real behavior is, they can bet their right-wing counterparts never would have considered stooping that low, which all-too-often allows the Left's abuses to pass by undetected, unprepared for.
For example, the Obama Administration undertook some unpopular measure that was discussed in the news. Soon afterwards, the Administration announced its Iran Treaty. It would have taken some time to read, but—for a while—the common assumption was that Obama was employing a carrot and stick approach. The great carrot of the Iran treaty would outshine the implementation of the stick to the minor points of contention that preceded it and make the Right Wing look petty. No one suspected that [the designs employed by President Obama] would make his approach look petty as [they] eventually did.
It was revealed that [President Obama's] strategy with the Iran deal was an attempt to overload the Right Wing with multiple [subtle] issues, together with those from the preceding measure, [and to claim a presence of radical imams in Iran, with no evidence, who shared in the Right wing in opposing the treaty. Thus President Obama and his State Department officers would be portrayed as practical centrists, and, in addition, the President's oppositional attempts would yield the prejudgment of the treaty by interested parties] rather than [the judgment of] the Right Wing [in taking] due consideration [of the merits of the treaty].
VargasMilan (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
VargasMilan (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2017 (EDT) Revised.
The alt-right is part of right-wing politics. They have about 2-3 main factions within them if I am not mistaken. I think the alt-right is growing. The alt-right helped get Donald Trump elected. Some of them left the Trump train after the election. The mainstream media demanded that Trump disavow the alt-right and he did. However, Trump may have no idea what the alt-right is.
The alt-right faction of right-wing politics is not part of conservatism if I am not mistaken. I think that they are separate ideologies. I do not know if you can plausibly be a conservative and also be a alt-right person. Maybe it depends how you define the words cconservative/onservatism. Conservative (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2017 (EDT)

Quick note

Can you please contact me at:

I would appreciate it. Conservative (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2017 (EDT)

Thanks and Game over,l a glorious victory has been achieved

Glad to hear it. I assume this means you will move on to issues that still need work. SamHB (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2018 (EDT)

Thanks again for all your footnoting help as far as the atheism article and the Atheism Quotes articles.

Please read: Decline of the atheist movement. Game over. Fantasies of the secular left to attain hegemony in future are now effectively over.

"We’re saying merry Christmas again." - Donald J. Trump.Conservative (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (EDT)

"You came back too early"

This ([10]) is presumably a reference to my edit ([11]), shown in the article history as having taken place at 04:31, 20 May 2018. Now that history is apparently kept in UTC, so it would have been 23:31, 19 May in EST, and 00:31, 20 May EDT. My local time is EDT, so it was on 20 May. That's what my clock said, and I waited until it was the 20th.

Now, as you know, being "inactive" is not a promise never to edit, and a check of my contributions will show that I do occasionally make edits that I consider important even while I am nominally inactive. Like improving the Alan Turing article or explaining "night mode" to Shobson20.

Apparently you share Cons's passion over the issue of British potholes, and the implication of same for discussion of evolution. I'm glad to see that.

SamHB (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2018 (EDT)

Purge markup language

<html> <api> <purge> <page ns="6" title="File:U. S. National Debt as percentage of GDP - FY1977-FY2017.jpg" purged="" linkupdate="" /> </purge> <normalized> <n from="File:U._S._National_Debt_as_percentage_of_GDP_-_FY1977-FY2017.jpg" to="File:U. S. National Debt as percentage of GDP - FY1977-FY2017.jpg" /> </normalized> </api> </html>


Hi, I am stuck on a pacific question that I cannot answer. I looked it up on Google and nothing gives me the actual answer. I can't save a page here from a CAPTCHA, unless this question doesn't pop up. "What is the last name of the Prior Republican president?" MinecraftFan (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (EST)
What are you talking about? You've never edited here. VargasMilan (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2019 (EST)
I tried to create my user page, but that question popped up that I couldn't answer to. Do you know the answer? For example in the CAPTCHA it might ask:how many original Apostles of Jesus were there? Answer is 12. There is the question about what is the last name of the prior Republican president? At first I thought it was Trump. MinecraftFan (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2019 (EST)

Test signature

This is a test. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 21:11, 29 March 2019 (EDT)


Thanks for archiving the main page talk entry!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

You're welcome, Andy. Glad I could help! VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 08:02, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia triumphs over atheist/agnostic wiki

Have you read the essay: Conservapedia triumphs over atheist/agnostic wiki?

"There is no substitute for victory." - Douglas MacArthur

Thanks for updating the footnoting for the atheism article.Conservative (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

We need to display Ace gagged and bound on a float in our triumphal march! With you on the case, I was pretty sure he would get his eventually.
Hopefully I'll do more on the footnotes. I was hoping I could separate the notes from the regular footnotes, but it's taking too long to build the template, and we shouldn't have to wait all year. I agree that was a great article you did.
VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 23:39, 16 April 2019 (EDT)
I got involved in Conservapedia while New Atheism and the atheist movement were still alive (see: Decline of the atheist movement).
It looks like the zenith of American atheism power might have been between during the period between 2014-2016 and the zenith of British atheism power was around 2017. It is tough to say concerning the USA if atheists have reached their zenith of power, but ultimately the growth of American hispanics is not something that is favorable to American atheists (see: Atheism and Latino Americans). Ultimately US/UK atheism are both doomed due to the expected rise of religious fundamentalism and the expected growth of religious immigrants and their progeny. You can get a better feel for this by reading the American atheism and British atheism articles.
In 2011, two events happened: Elevatorgate and the British Humanism Association backing out of their debate with William Lane Craig (see: Atheism and cowardice). Both of these events potended US/UK atheism possibly peaking soon. Also, Brexit/Trump were probably disasters for the secular left - especially if Trump is re-elected.Conservative (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
You wrote: "We need to display Ace gagged and bound on a float in our triumphal march!"
Actually, if you go to Alexa's page on RW and look at their referral traffic from websites other than Google, it is certainly possible that fairly often they are preaching to the secular leftist choir and often serving as an echo chamber. On the other hand, Conservapedia's referral traffic from other websites which can be see at CP Alexa, indicates Conservapedia's traffic from websites other than Google is often from far/center left websites. In addition, Conservapedia's collection of atheism articles is receiving hundreds of thousands of page views.
If you asked 99.99999999999999999999 (etc. etc. to nearly infinity) of the American population who Ace McWicked is, they would have a blank face. The truth is that other than Edmund Hillary most Americans have never heard of any people from NZ who ever have lived. Ace McWicked has zero influence on editors of Conservapedia. On the other hand, there are gentlemen at a certain wiki who remain obsessed with Conservapedia (see: Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder). And a quick examination of Ace McWicked's posts indicate that Conservapedia's various articles on the immoral acts of atheists are a bee in his bonnet. I have enjoyed poking fun at the various follies of Ace McWicked though. Conservative (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2019 (EDT)
I remember in one of your articles you said some militant atheists had a following on Reddit until a "Faces of Atheism" feature appeared, and they failed the internet nerd test in front of their readers which led to a decline of influence on Reddit. And in another the Alexa rankings you had which backed up your reports of Dawkins' New Atheist website decline after Elevatorgate.
I'm not interested in your voluminous atheism articles all alike—based on the titles—though I've read a great many, and some I go to, when you link to them, in a spirit of "eating my vegetables", because I think I ought to know about the dangerous tendrils that extend from that movement. But even with those, I'll be reading, and you'll suddenly drop a jaw-dropping fact about these groups. For example in your Atheism vs. Islam article you talk about the leader of one of these (declining) movements who refuses to discuss atheism.
So much for "free-thinkers", huh? Not so free after all. I mean believers in God restrain themselves from speaking casually of what is holy, but these atheists boast that their logic is unswayed by all that, and have the power to employ it in bold usages as "shock troops", then are "shocked" to find estimations of themselves diminished by insights they were once able to deflect outright! That's progress in my book, and that happens to be what I think about the most when you mark their decline. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 13:40, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

The article Essay: 10 telltale signs you are an atheist nerd received 66,000 page views.

It seems as if the Atheism and necrophilia article particularly gets under the skin of Ace McWicked. As a result of one of his fulminations concerning this article, I added to the article with additional content related to the atheist Peter Singer. Ace indicated I was "fair game" because of this particular article. Ace sounds like Scientology cultist because "fair game" is one of their terms. Is Ace McWicked in an internet wiki atheist cult? Conservative (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia's influence on the atheist population

Please read this article: Essay: Conservapedia's effect on the atheist population.Conservative (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

The atheism killing atheist wiki that Conservapedia spawned

Please read this: Essay: The atheism killing atheist wiki that Conservapedia spawned.Conservative (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Could you be more specific concerning your page to me

Could you be more specific concerning your page to me?Conservative (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Sure. You quoted a source calling it NPR (National Public Radio). It was really NPG (Negative Population Growth). VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 15:08, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
It's in the essay in the previous section of this page. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 15:09, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
OK. Thanks. I will look at the citation in question.Conservative (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Why was I blocked?

I have just got over a month's block and the reason given for the block was "Inserting false information". I have never knowingly inserted false information into Conservapedia, so why was I blocked? Could it be that you were confusing me with another Conservapedian? Thank you if you could get back to me on this - you can leave a message on my Userpage. Carltonio (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

No, it was just for a month. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 13:08, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

I reckon this is a good place to explain myself. I was blocked erroneously by yourself for being a sock account. My name was PiousOne, and before that, Pious. I use NordVPN because I use sites such as Google and Youtube often, and I don't trust them to protect my data. My current VPN address is, my actual IP address is, and my ISP is Lipan Telephone Company. I definitely made a mistake in being very lazy with an edit, and I deservedly got called out on it. I kinda hope my block wasn't partially due to me being an anti-Trump conservative, but I've got to stick to my guns on this one- anyone who won't repent his sins is not a Christian and therefore not a Republican.

I'll randomize my password on this account after posting this to lock myself out, saving you the bother of blocking it. It'd be nice if you could unblock me on PiousOne, but I'm not holding my breath. I liked contributing here and I'll continue browsing this website, since it's an excellent repository of information. --Righteousness (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

You're just digging a hole deeper for yourself. Your earlier remarks indicated you made those foolish anti-Trump remarks to test our patience. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 18:59, 25 July 2019 (EDT)

Ah ha

Just as I suspected. I think you're anti-science. You seem to deny the science behind the solution to global warming.

We're running out of time. We only have 10 years to pass slave reparations, a guaranteed income, and Medicare for All to reduce carbon emissions and save the planet. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:44, 7 July 2019 (EDT)

Give it up

Although he's trying to make his articles more user-friendly, there are some things SamHB will never learn, despite the glaringly obvious spectacles of AOC and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. Pity poor Bernie Sanders, who has become too connected to reality to be a good Democratic politician or candidate anymore. VargasMilan (talk) Sunday, 23:57, 7 July 2019 (EDT)


~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Why right-wing populism will triumph

I thought you might find these articles interesting.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

It seems like the media elites are starting to come out of their denialism and are beginning to recognize that right-wing populism is not a temporary blip on the radar.Wikignome72 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Essay:The Groyper Wars

Why did you blank my essay? It's an essay, you can't do that! If you have a problem with my opinions, could you take it up on the talk page? I also set up a debate page a long time ago, here. Can I please restore my essay, or will you block me. I've worked really hard on it for months. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2020 (EST)

I re-instated the article. Please don't block me or anything, but I waited and did not get a response. You can't regulate my opinion. Next time, please don't blank the page or erase my article, at least if it's intended to be an opinion piece. I don't know why you felt the need to get rid of my article, but it was my opinion, and frankly, you have no control or authority over that. It's not fair for you to just get rid of Essays with opinions you don't like. I hope you understand my explanation and do not feel the need to discipline me. Thank you! ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2020 (EST)

Just because you're used to making false, misleading and unverifiable statements doesn't make it any better that you do it. And it doesn't even seem to bother you that you did. Of course I'm taking down your essay again. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 18:02, 25 February 2020 (EST)

I don't know what you're talking about, but I know when to quit, and this is not the hill I want to die on. I will NOT reinstate the page again. But I am curious: what misleading, untrue, or unverifiable claims do you think I made? I provided 73 sources, including sources from both sides of the debate. So there's the verification. And wouldn't it only be your opinion that my opinion is untrue? But it's fine. I'll leave it. The Groyper Wars are over. Still, any time you want to have a debate about this, feel free. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2020 (EST)

That's what scary about it; you know how to verify your remarks or redetermine them if your source doesn't agree, but you won't. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 19:38, 25 February 2020 (EST)


You have been blocked.

Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan

Reasons for action taken.

Substantial violation of key Conservapedia ethical and moral principles: To wit:

Conservapedia Commandments: number 3.

Conservapedia Guidelines#Duties:

Blocking for ideological reasons
Name Calling and Insults
Using Article Talk pages as Debate Forums for unresolved historical ideological and theological controversies
Unjustified threat of blocking and of massive deletion of all previous contributions (see below)

Conservapedia Guidelines#Civility:

Violation of Civility
Attacking for beliefs

Conservapedia Guidelines#Teamwork

number 2.

Conservapedia Guidelines#90/10 Rule

The sheer bulk of antagonistic responses of opinionated prejudicial point-of-view compared to the verifiable content of substantiated articles wrongly rejected as wrong and biased, refusal to accept reasonable replies with courtesy and respect, and refusal to let the matter rest.

Conservapedia:Topic bans: evidence of promoting a personal agenda as against well-founded research

Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia: numbers 12. and 15.

Bias#Encyclopedias: clear evidence of slanted bias in unjustified activities against multiple Conservapedia users

Trolling: evidence of, in exhibits below

Exhibits follow

A. Unjustified threat of blocking acted on and threat of obtaining a cooperative partner in plan to exercise massive deletion of all previous contributions

User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion "enjoy a block" unless a response is forthcoming
Talk:Salvation#Wow threat to get an administrator to "nuke all your contributions from day one"
User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block

C. Talk:Infant baptism#Comment on page

Talk:Infant baptism: general tone of sheer bulk of numerous repetitive arguments and attacks with more of the same in an extensive archive of the page

D. Talk:Helpless babies and sinners: attack on an established doctrinal belief

E. User talk:Dataclarifier#Infant baptism

B. Debate: Infant baptism: repetitive attacks on beliefs and contentious arguing lacking civility

F. User talk:Dataclarifier#Ridiculous arguments

G. User talk:Dataclarifier#See Talk:Salvation

Exhibit A above suggests that RobSmith may have indeed elicited the cooperative agreement of VargasMilan to effect the intended [21 Feb to 1 May] unjustified block removed 25 Feb by AndyS. Further evidence from the comments made by VargasMilan on the linked talk and debate pages of the other exhibits strongly suggests a similar shared hostility and antipathy toward the fundamental key principles of Conservapedia which gradually becomes more evident from the reactions of other users in later postings on both their talk pages.

H. User talk:VargasMilan

I. User talk:RobSmith

Copies to Aschlafly, RobSmith, VargasMilan

--Dataclarifier (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

quick question

Nobody won the groceries. The surpising answer to what the most determining factor to being a sign-carrying protestor is...being an atheist. VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 22:56, 9 May 2020 (EDT)

VargasMilan, may I see your source please?Conservative (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2020 (EDT

Dataclarifier leaving CP?

Hi Vargas, I'm just wondering, what was is that got Dataclarifier to block you for an expiry time of infinity before it was quickly reversed by Shobson20? It seems that the disputes over Bible interpretations just dragged on and on, and that many editors may have been somewhat harsh regarding the matter. Is there any other reason Dataclarifier might be mad at you aside from the fact that you initially blocked him for three months? I do hope that CP didn't just drive out a long-time editor, although IndependentSkeptic's comment here may suggest otherwise. RobSmith seemed more optimistic about Dataclarifier coming back, although I have definitely large doubts over that. And I do sincerely hope you didn't engage in the type of bad faith Dataclarifier alleged when blocking you, although I definitely have suspicions, especially when you made humor over the notion of blocking me over the use of term "Chicken-snoozer", as seen here. --LiberaltearsFlip the House red! 02:04, 10 June 2020 (EDT)

You're putting words in my mouth. Don't you think you probably would have hurt Hickenlooper's feelings by making that wisecrack? Yet when you did it a second time I couldn't bring myself to defend him. That's not "making humor" over things I might do, on the contrary: sometimes you just can't carry things through to the bitter end. I rather made humor over the "notion" that I couldn't defend Hickenlooper from a funny nickname because its pull to his reputation was too strong, reflecting the fate of the Democrat slate of candidacies this year. I think that thinking a funny nickname is somehow indispensible is a funny thing. But only for a public figure, of course. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 03:50, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
I think it was Dataclarifiers actions here [12] and about a dozen other pages when he started spamming mainspace articles with religious bigotry that got him in trouble. And he has been extremely uncooperative on talk pages resolve differences. RobSLive Free or Die 11:53, 10 June 2020 (EDT)
Regarding your response, Vargas, here's the thing: making a nickname for a sexist wacko Democrat like Hickenlooper isn't a particular big deal to issue a block over. I know this is a late response, and here's another thing (that you didn't respond to): Dataclarifier is probably out of CP now for good. Did this really need to happen because editors here were treating Dataclarifier somewhat, if not rather harshly? I thought this site was supposed to differentiate from other wikis with the fact that there's supposed to be no mobocracy, as partially ensured via the 90/10 rule. --LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 20:49, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

He's been "about to leave" for months now. But then a clone of him showed up the day after he was blocked, and a month later he came back with a detailed list in order to scold Rob and me among other things he did.

And Hickenlooper may be a liberal, but he has feelings too. I'm sorry if you were surprised, but I felt strongly that you stooped down in an effort to dismiss Hickenlooper, yet found it so à propos that I tried to convey that the fact he was a public figure halted me entirely. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 21:57, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

And Rob is right: I presume he was angered that the near miss he was involved in resulted in his hope of more independence from co-operation suddenly taken away. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 22:37, 11 June 2020 (EDT)

For the record: Here's the controversial section he spammed into dozens of pages [13]. Here's my questioning what the phrase "mythical Jesus invented by Paul" means. [14] The phrase "mythical Jesus invented by Paul" still exists in two places on the server. [15]
At Talk:Salvation#Illustration_of_a_circular_argument, Dataclarifier was asked, "Does the Roman Catholic Church regard the Apostle Paul as an authoritative source of the Word of God?", and refused to answer. (Please note, this discussion took place May 5, long after the February block). RobSLive Free or Die 10:15, 12 June 2020 (EDT)

Another illustration excerpted from the link above:

Protestantism as a form of Gnostic Christianity
Relativist interpreters emphasize that "the true value of the Gospel" lies primarily in its profound psychological and emotional impact, in the telling of the story, without the necessity of it being factually and historically true....

Dataclarifier is using the term "relativist" to refer to Protestant Christianity; "true value of the Gospel" lies primarily in its profound psychological and emotional impact, in the telling of the story, assuming Dataclarifier is referring to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is why the question of Hebrews 4:2 is so crucial, cause nowhere does Moses tell the story of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as being the Gospel.

This is simply anti-biblical bigotry at at its worst, abuse of the scriptures, trolling, and non-cooperative editing. Dataclarifier could have avoided all this trouble if he simply engaged properly in discussion back in October 2019 and answered if the Gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness. Obviously, Dataclarifier's understanding of what the Gospel is conflicts with what the Bible says the Gospel is. RobSLive Free or Die 08:50, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

I knew he was going to eventually leave. It was hard to work out compromise articles with him. As far as Catholicism/Protestantism, it is possible to two accurately state both views on a topic as far as an article. And then simply let the reader decide. But he didn't want that.Wikignome72 (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2020 (EDT)

VargasMilan proven right

Hi Vargas, I must admit that you were right back here regarding the discussion over Hickenlooper/Romanoff; it seems that Hickenlooper has beat Romanoff in every county but one, and overall by a margin of over 15% of the vote.[16]

Also, since you were right about the Senate Democrat primary in Colorado, what do you think about the Senate Republican primary in Arizona that will be held on August 4, 2020? Do you suppose McSally will easily win or that Daniel McCarthy will be able to pull of a victory in a surprise upset? The latter's running on a platform accusing Sen. McSally of somehow being a "RINO". —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 17:14, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

Project 150 Million! Please Participate!

Hi Vargas. Would you like to participate in Conservapedia's own Project 150 Million: It is modeled after Project 100 million of another website. To participate, please share your testimony for Jesus Christ our King. You can be as brief and generic as you wish; even a couple of sentences will do. Please ask others also to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony for Christ Our King. The Bible says, a Multitude of People is the King's Honor. So let us work for the Glory and Honor of Christ Our King by winning a multitude of people to Him. Hallelujah! Amen. So be it Lord. 10:16, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Group project?

Dataclarifier, NishantXavier, LiberalTears and IndependentSkeptic are characterized by all agreeing with each other, even though some set up man-traps or pitfalls with an amazing commonality of being fitted to what RobS might do. I don't think RobS would be unable to extract himself if he got caught; I just think he shouldn't have to participate in their stupidity. So keep an eye on these guys, because they might get blocked or double down on what seems to motivate their behavior: a preoccupation with avoiding deferring to RobS at any cost! VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 15:23, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

So apparently I "might get blocked" despite the fact that you actually violate the 90/10 rule (see Vargas' 500 previous edits here). —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:31, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
So you respond to my mostly valid point with a half-rant here, and double down by assuming supernatural mind-reading powers to somehow "assume" that I had "malice aforethought". Is this what Andy promoted you to do? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:39, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Also, please quit being harsh on NishantXavier. The latter actually makes more relevant, constructive contributions than you currently do. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:41, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
All three of these responses hurt my feelings! I don't even want to talk to you. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:04, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Then why would you invoke my name? Besides, you literally responded in order to assert that you "don't even want to talk" to me, which is a contradiction. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 16:12, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm not worried. The Pope hasn't been born yet that can defy the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:23, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
The latest is an alleged seminary student claims the Holy Spirit is received at baptism. Of course in all his seminary years they never had him study these verses:
  • Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
  • I baptize with water: but....Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
In conclusion: we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,
like the people who run that seminary. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:39, 13 July 2020 (EDT)

Dear Brothers/Sisters/Friends, let's not drag each other down here, but seek ways in which we can lift each other up. That's behaving like true Christians would, as we all profess to be. We are not competitors here, but collaborators, co-operating on an exciting project of Making the World Conservative Again! NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:00, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

That would be impossible, since you are glossing over the fact that I could probably find many examples, from all four of you, where, in discussions, even though you do respond, you respond only to the material that it pleases you to include, while ignoring information that is often even the most relevant. That is a fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, and that you carry it out to the bitter end to me is both weird and irresponsible.
Having entered the discussion, I'd probably have even met you halfway by answering polite requests for examples or insights as to relevance. But RobS has stated he's willing to suffer along to demonstrate the merits of his positions, and "clearing the deck" of preliminary distinctions to cool down the argument to a level of constructive engagement had been my primary concern, just as, paradoxically, it caused you to drop the argument each time like a hot potato and take up another one, and, as mentioned above, even, at length, the one directly preceding your remarks here!
VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:53, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
This inability to stay on point is a sign of shallow faith in what increasingly looks like a shallow faith that is hard to defend. But never mind. There are reams and reams of unresolved historical debates to draw on and recycle, and continue to ignore teaching the Word of God to young children and church members, as has become the Roman Church's official doctrine. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:34, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

I am all for constructive discussion in a structured manner. When 10 points are made, it's a little difficult if we object that only 8 are replied to, while 2 are omitted. Btw, I also asked a question that was unanswered. But leave that. Whatever topic we want to debate/discuss, let's create a debate page on that (it's not like we have space constraints; no, we are free from those) and then focus that debate only on that topic. An example could be the Sacraments. Another e.g. on what Evangelicals believe and what Catholics believe. One could be one Once Saved, Always Saved etc. God Bless. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:07, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

I think I'll leave it in Rob's capable hands to treat your behavior in whatever way he sees fit. I've provided him what evidence I could, and, after all, he's the one you targeted with your abuse of propositional speech in presenting what you called a key doctrinal statement in the form of a sentence that made use of double meanings. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 08:50, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
NX: "Structured manner"! HA!. I asked about the meaning of Christ died once for all and why the need for repeated sacrifices. (A) You never responded. (B) You created an entirely pointless discussion on purgatory. (C) You created a subhead with my name accusing me of unBiblical representations, and asserted that sacrifices of praises are somehow analogous to transubstantiation. None of this is constructive.
In fact, if you want to prove any evidence of good faith, you can go back and rename that subhead and remove my name. Til then, we have little in good faith to negotiate. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

I think there is no need to be on the defensive when no one is attacking you. Question: Are you Catholic or Evangelical, Vargas Milan? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:03, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Let's take the term "evangelism" for example. I remember a time when "evangelical" and "evangelism" were dirty words in the Roman Church. Now you push a reform idea that "evangelism" is to fulfill the "great commission" ("great commission" defined as being under bondage to the papacy). I'm sure 90%+ of people who identify as "evangelicals" do not see your idea of "evangelism" that way, at all. In fact, they probably are angry about your hijacking and corrupting the meaning of the term they use to differentiate themselves from the papacy which has a long history of misinterpreting scripture. This is just the latest chapter. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Let's talk about the Holy Spirit

NX: Let's talk about the Holy Spirit, and tell us why or where you got the doctrinal idea that an infant receives the Holy Spirit at baptism? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:41, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Here's a typical "structured" debate:
Rob: Show evidence infants receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.
Roman believer: Well Catholics believe .....
Rob: That's not what I asked. I asked to show evidence from God's mouth that infants receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.
Roman believer: Well the pope said....
Rob: Show evidence from God's mouth that God ever appointed a group of cardinals to elect a spokesman.
Roman believer: Well Jesus said "Thou art Peter...."
Rob: Show evidence God ever empowered a body to vote to elect His spokesman. There is no biblical precedent for that.
Roman believer: You're going to hell for failing to abide by the dictates of men who appointed themselves as God's spokesman.
Rob: But that is not what God says.
Roman believer: Man decides what God says.
Rob: Ok, thanks. I think we understand each other now.

RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:55, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

I removed your name since you asked. This above question has already been answered, from St. Peter in the Bible, many times. Protestants are doctrinally mistaken in their denial of Baptismal Regeneration; just as Sadducees were doctrinally mistaken in their denial of the Resurrection.

""Acts 2:38 - St. Peter declares that the Spirit is promised to the Baptized! To one of the most important questions in soteriology, the basic question, "what must we do to be saved?" (Acts 2:37), St. Peter the Apostle, on the day of Pentecost, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, did not declare Baptism merely symbolic and inefficacious, but said, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

This statement is clear. They were to repent of their unbelief. They were to be baptized in the Name given by the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. And when they did this, they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. These statements of the Chief Apostle, given the Keys to open the Kingdom of God to unbelievers, by, among other things, declaring its mysteries (Mat 16:19), show to us that Baptism truly regenerates the soul. It has efficacy, as the same St. Peter the Apostle would later write, "by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 3:21). That means Baptism effects something. It is not just a bare and empty sign. It effects the resurrection of the believer from sin and death to grace and life." NishantXavierFor Christ the King 18:39, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Roman Catholics are doctrinally mistaken that a religious ceremony performed on them as an infant makes them children of God just as the Pharisees were doctrinally mistaken that circumcision made them children of Abraham. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 19:32, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Catholic vs. Protestant debates: I posted this material on User: NishantXavier and User: RobSmith's talk pages

Please read this material I posted on User: NishantXavier's and User: RobSmith's talk pages.

Please stop having debates on talk pages. Conservapedia has debate pages

Conservapedia has debate pages. For example, here is a debate page: Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?.

What I see now is a whole bunch of repetitive and poorly organized material on talk pages dealing with Catholic vs. Protestant issues that is not bringing web traffic. This needs to stop. I stopped reading this repetive material and I am others have as well.

If you are going to have debates, for the sake of Conservapedia readers, have them on debate pages. Nobody wants to read poorly organized and repetitive material.

So please stop having debates on talk pages. Conservapedia has debate pages.

Thank you.Conservative (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Addendum: Re: Catholic vs. Protestant debates on talk pages

I posted the below message to RobSmith and it refines my thinking on this matter.

RobSmith, I know you do your best to bring in web traffic which Conservapedians appreciate.

I have a small request.

Conservapedia has debate pages. For example, here is a debate page: Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?.

Having a debate on a specific issue, would make the debate exchanges more organized and debates with debate titles on the page would be more organized.

I would also suggest setting up debate guidelines. Because right now the back and forth between the Protestants and Catholics is getting repetitive. And because it is on talk pages, it tends not to be very organized.

What I see now is a whole bunch of repetitive and poorly organized material on talk pages dealing with Catholic vs. Protestant issues that is not bringing web traffic.

If you are going to have debates, for the sake of Conservapedia readers, have them on debate pages. Conservative (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

If you bring your material to debate pages, it will also garner web traffic because title pages of web pages are more search engine friendly.Conservative (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Please stay off NishantXavier's user talk page

VargasMilan, please stay off NishantXavier's user talk page.

Don't be pulled into his talk page via his provocative pontificating on his talk page.

Readers of wiki encyclopedia's want to be informed via encyclopedia articles.

Debate pages can be informative too. Each side makes it case in a logical and sequential manner.

NishantXavier's provocative pontifications on his talk page are a recipe for no holds barred back and forth rancor. These are not very educational. So please avoid them.

Thanks.Conservative (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

I thought that you would let me make an exception based on the profundity of Martin Buber's thought, but I guess not. Okay, I'll stay off his talk page. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 05:01, 24 July 2020 (EDT)
That will be better. You can't grow a big amount of traffic to a website with talk pages. They tend to be unorganized, overly emotional and not very informative. In addition, they are not search engine friendly because there is a mishmash of material on talk pages (search engines like material that is topically focused).
In addition, there will less acrimony at the wiki.
The end result will be more encyclopedia articles and debate pages which will be more informative to the public.Conservative (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

Punish China

3 months is a bit harsh, don't you think? You haven't undone any of his alleged false information, nor discussed it on talk. What's up? RobSFree Kyle! 18:22, 11 September 2020 (EDT)

I did too. It was a three-at-once revert of Twitter. You got spoofed. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:25, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
It's not like it's commie agitprop. What's the problem with it and why can't it be discussed first? RobSFree Kyle! 18:29, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
Trump was NOT permanently banned, and he said so twice. There's other mistakes, too. He's just repeating a random piece of conservative news, getting it wrong deliberately, responding harshly as a kind of glossy flattery and posting it. Another person did the same thing in the past few hours. Total troll. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:32, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
Okay, so he didn't cite a source. But 3 months is kinda harsh. How about we let him out of jail before the election? RobSFree Kyle! 18:44, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
I just reduced the block to two days. —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 18:51, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
You all know what that heaving sound is? It's me, sitting on the curb in front of my house, sobbing with my face in my hands. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 18:54, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
And why is that? —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 18:56, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
Despite my best efforts at dropping hints to you guys, the spammer that Karajou blocked got a complete victory at avenging himself upon that administrator by winning your unalloyed support. Congratulations. VargasMilan (talk) Friday, 19:14, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
If you think that User:Punish China is a sock of the juvenile delinquent, then ask RobSmith or Karajou to use check user and make sure. —LiberaltearsMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 19:20, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
Seeing his longer history, maybe not, but evidently that has little meaning—they allowed you to checkuser yourself against certain vandals! VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 00:24, 12 September 2020 (EDT)
I am definitely not the juvenile delinquent, I don't even know who is that specific juvenile delinquent, I just didn't know how to source very well, my apologies. Anyways, I meant to use this source:, but I really need help in it, as I am an intermediate-to-advanced editor, but not an expert editor. Thanks! - User:United States

2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics

Voters have cast a total of 9,737,497 ballots in the reporting states. RobSFree Kyle! 14:48, 12 October 2020 (EDT)

Move discussion

I'm going to move the discussion to Debate:Belloc, Schumpeter, Adler ''et al'', a mainspace, cause that ignorant little snot Liberaltears wants to block you for a 90/l0 violation. I told him do not interfere in other people's discussions. RobSFree Kyle! 17:02, 24 December 2020 (EST)

I'm averring we're in a real national crisis. Shouldn't we put such rules in abeyance for now in light of that? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:06, 24 December 2020 (EST)
I couldn't agree more. But LT is acting like the Supreme Court handling a Trump lawsuit and moreless says, buzz off. RobSFree Kyle! 17:09, 24 December 2020 (EST)
When did Liberal Tears become the managing administrator? Can we appeal to Andy? VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:11, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Wow Vargas, I never knew you are exempt from the rules simply because you are able to come up with lame excuses. For basically the entirety of this year, you just talk and talk nonstop. Need I remind you that nearly everyone else follows 90/10? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 17:13, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Now hold on, so you're going to complain to Andy because I point out that you're violating the rules? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 17:14, 24 December 2020 (EST)
90/l0 is the stupidiest thing anyone ever came up with, short of defund the police. RobSFree Kyle! 17:17, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Since when is it particularly stupid to say that at least 10% of one's edits should be solid contributions? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 17:18, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Since when is it particulalry stupid to say 90/l0 killed any chance of building a CP userbase, especially after l5 years? RobSFree Kyle! 17:20, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Tell me, what's the difference between Twitter censorship and 90/l0? RobSFree Kyle! 17:20, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Twitter censorship is based on political ideology. 90/10 has to do with excessive talking/lack of mainspace contributions. —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Thursday, 17:27, 24 December 2020 (EST)
Oh, and 90/l0 was not designed to censor political ideology? You need to get a life. RobSFree Kyle! 17:29, 24 December 2020 (EST)
We don't need 90/10, we already have anti-trolling rules which can be applied, technically with appropriate warnings, at 30/70. RobSGive Peace a chance 15:37, March 6, 2023 (EST)
All right, I will accept having it moved if you tell us what a good procedure to follow would be if there were a crisis of national import which needed to be addressed. VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:21, 24 December 2020 (EST)
That we can address in the debate page mainspace. Too bad it's another victory for CP censorship - moving a meaningful discussion from its top ten most view pages to some obscure location on the server. RobSFree Kyle! 17:27, 24 December 2020 (EST)
"Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view."—Thomas Aquinas
If you are weak in a crisis, you are weak indeed. (Proverbs)
VargasMilan (talk) Thursday, 17:33, 24 December 2020 (EST)
I've been in this position dozens of times in CP - in the midst of an intelligent, meaningful discussion, and some third party comes along, shuts it down, blocks participants, and deletes the discussion. They don't want intelligent debate. No one in the hierarchy will listen to my protests. RobSFree Kyle! 18:10, 24 December 2020 (EST)

Talk pages

Please reread:

Thank you. RobSGive Peace a chance 14:03, March 6, 2023 (EST)

I can't. I'm feeling pretty sick. VargasMilan (talk) Monday, 16:50, March 6, 2023 (EST)
God bless you. Hopes for a speedy recovery. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:01, March 6, 2023 (EST)
I was feeling sick at the prospect of having to read the articles you asked me to read. My ability to read technical literature waxes and wanes, a good part of the reasons into which I often have no discernment.
But this causes the kind of vicious circle, or worse, chaotic system, of which I already spoke, where my solicitude to defend persons under time pressure raises my apprehensions while trying to read the literature you asked me to, where there's no certainty of my being able to finish it, as well as apprehensions about adjustments I have to make to my schedule should I fail to complete it, where I would have some need to re-read portions of it as well.
I will keep trying to build up the mental momentum to read through it, though. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 07:41, March 7, 2023 (EST)
For simplicity's sake, here's the subsection on Talk pages [17] from the first link. That, and the Civility clauses. Undoing an Admin's action is a no-no, too. Basically, Main Page Talk is not a Community Portal for shootin' the breeze about whatever topic comes to mind or trashing other users. There is an appropriate place for everything. Usually, the specific article talk page. Thanks. RobSGive Peace a chance 14:24, March 7, 2023 (EST)