Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Category talk:Deceit

2007-08-09T00:04:38Z

Bafi: /* Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the most deceitful of all? */

As much as I agree that liberals generally don't mind deceit, does the article [[Liberal]] really fit in this category? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:It seems to imply that every liberal actively utilizes deceit. Well, following the logic put forth, I see no reason to not put [[Conservative]] in this category. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:12, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::Do either of those really fit? Is this category supposed to be examples of deceit? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:13, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Neither of them do. Categories are meant to be for subjects relating to that thing, like [[Deceit]], [[Deceitful comments]], [[methods of deceit]], [[examples of deceit]], etc. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:16, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thats what I was thinking. Now how to go about removing the article from the category....? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:18, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Go to the article and remove the category (it should be at the very bottom). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:21, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, I know that. I was a little concerned about the reaction. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:22, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Well, there isn't really any rational defense for keeping [[Liberal]] in here, without pretty much every other group of people ([[Muslims]], [[Republicans]], [[Homosexuals]], [[People who enjoy eating Welsh rarebit]], [[Albanian expatriots]], etc.) or removing said group. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:26, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
*Thanks for the suggestion, Hoji! I will re-add Homosexuals and Democrats to the category. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:30, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::And I'll go make a list of people who claim to enjoy eating [[Borscht]], because they ''have'' to be lying... their opinions don't fit with mine, so I'll label them as [[deceit]]ful. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:32, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I have to admit that [[Liberal]] doesn't seem to fit in with the other articles in the category, the others seem to be examples of deceit. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:34, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, who is more deceitful than modern Liberals? I have asked Andy to give his thinking on this..... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, [[Islam|Muslims]], [[Judaism|Jews]], and [[Roman Catholicism|Catholics]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:48, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*Since we are of the majority opinion here, Hoji, please take care your actions are not considered vandalism, by more than just me. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:51, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:I think you're confusing "different belief system" or "different ideology" with "deceit". Do Muslims honestly think they are lying to people about what they believe in? Do Jews? Do Christians? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 18:53, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I reverted the religion articles, they don't fit at all. I'll let Andy give his opinion if he has been asked like TK suggested. The religions dont fit at all. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:07, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*I strongly suggest, Bohdan, that you not question my veracity anywhere. If I said I asked Andy to give his opinion, I did. Is that clear? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:15, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::oh, alright, you must have been communicating privately then? I await his word on this. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:19, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*Bohdan, it is only you and Joaquin who are posting publicly every admin question and problem. We have given you other tools, but you refuse to use them. So be it. But it does disqualify you from having any authority, without communication. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:24, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:Perhaps telling Bohdan about these tools would allow him to use them. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 19:34, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::Please ''don't make this about me''. Hoji, I reverted your edits to the different religions, I really don't think they fit at all. I am now removing myself from this conversation. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:37, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

===Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the most deceitful of all?===
TK wrote: "Well, who is more deceitful than modern Liberals? I have asked Andy to give his thinking on this....." That is so easy! Scripture declares: "He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies" (John 8:44). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

*I stand corrected! Who is the second most deceitful? Liberals! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:43, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, I get it. Liberals are the devil, great. Not mature, not funny - just weak and sad. --[[User:QuinnPitcock|QuinnPitcock]] 19:47, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
::: They weren't trying to be funny. Not a wit. They are serious. [[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:04, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-08-05T00:57:55Z

Bafi: /* Mitt Romney */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes...congratulations! I was always horrible at chess...I just move a piece and see what happens...the word strategy does not exist in my dictionary :) [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Congratulations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Belated congrats! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Would you please categorize... ==

the article on [[pornography]]? If I read the history correctly you are the protecting sysop so I figured you'd like first crack at it. May I suggest something simple like "media" for now? I have plans to re-organize many category structures but at the moment that's likely to be your best fit. Of course, you should do as you see fit. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm just doing them alphabetically, honest!

:Hello again,

:Would you also please categorize [[Main Page/new style]]? Thank you, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Good Catch ==

...On the user name "Bush is retarded" spelt backwards. Of course I guess I should expect that from a chess champion. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hitler's vegetarianism==
Hi. What exactly is your source that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian? I've read numerous places that he was, including, I believe, the memoirs of his friend Albert Speer. Is the argument that he wasn't a ''strict'' vegetarian? Because there are numerous definitions of vegetarianism, and some allow for limited meat ingestion. If I recall, his reasons were health and not animal ights, but I don't think that matters. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There's at the very least, enough controversy about whether he was [http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/] that we shouldn't dogmatically say one way or the other. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler's personal chef says his favourite dish was pigeon [http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/]; it seems from various other sources that while he ''preferred'' a vegetarian diet, he deviated enough from it to not be classed as a vegetarian. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sources are numerous. One source of good criticism cites how Hitler was not sympathetic to German soldiers freezing in Russia who asked for meat. Hitler went into a long spiel about how the Roman legions survived on grains, etc., and probably regarded meat eaters as subversive to the Nazi effort. Ultimately, many meat eaters probably betrayed the Nazi cause because of this--Hitler just didn't care if meat eaters got fed or not, and expected everybody to be like him and make the same sacrifices during the privations of a prolonged war, which of course to a vegetarian of many years, are not sacrifices at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The sources for his meat eating and love of ham and bavarian sausages are numerous also [http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm]; many commentators also point out that Hitler never claimed to be a vegetarian, outlawed vegetarian organizations and prevented all measures aimed at easing Germany’s food shortages that involved a reduction in meat consumption. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I want to put a few more pictures in the [[evolution]] article. Do you know how to do that? I want to put a picture of [[Ernst Haeckel]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E I also want to put a picture of [[Stephen Gould]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Punctuated_Equilibrium Please don't use the picture of Stephen Gould used at [[Wikipedia]]. Can you help? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Thanks ==

Thank you for welcoming me, DanH. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 20:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Grunge ==
I agree. A lot of post-grunge bands really ruined grunge. Everclear,Third Eye Blind,Matchbox 20, and even Daughtry (he was classified post-grunge too lol) really turned grunge to pop - rock.

(whoops forgot to sign)

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Favorite Original Grunge Band: Alice In Chains

Favorite Post-Grunge: Three Days Grace or Breaking Benjamin

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:06, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block! Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, a second great block in the same night!!! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== thanks ==

The user who put those questionable comments was a sock of vandal redhungary, who I think you dealt with earlier. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's ark ==

Heya -- I'm interested in making some changes to Noah's ark -- proposed them on the talk page -- any chance you could try unlocking it for a while and see if revert wars and/or vandalism become a problem? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please protect my signature templates ==

The templates in question are:
*[[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]
*[[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]]
and
*[[User:PheasantHunter/sig]]

I am the only person who has any business editing them (aside from Andy). Other users who edit them are probably vandalizing them. Niandra protected them, but then TK unprotected them (he was probably confused since this is a technical issue.) Could you either take it up with other sysops or just go ahead and protect the above templates? Thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal blocking ==
:Good job blocking the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DanH&page= vandals]. [[User:JohnMorrisonBirch|JohnMorrisonBirch]] 21:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Crop Circles ==

Dear Dan

I wander why you removed the information about Stonehenge. It is now in the middle of an explanation as you can see in the talk page of that article. According to the theory (?) it is a geometrical pattern and consequently a "crop circle" (near a Myth?). Neither Jazzman831 nor you asked me about it before deleting. That is not the right way to collaborate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*Joaquin my friend, I beleive I asked you to post in the sysop area about this, no? Please do so. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion Request ==

Hi, you're an admin here, right? Could you delete [[Charlesincharge]]?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 22:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert on Guillotine ==

Why is it liberal bias to cite a fact? Capital punishment is indeed contrary to the French constitution following a vote of the French Parliament, in April 2007. I do not understand why you reverted this?[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

It probably wasn't, but the term First World seems to imply that. Maybe as in most of Europe, or in much of the world would be a way to put it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:OK. By the way, thank you for having moved [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. [[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:17, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear DanH,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. ''I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". '' Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:58, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''
:::TK, that is untrue as my message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my''' cited''' articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== stonehenge ==

DanH, please do not revert me again. My new post states: broke conservapedia commandments. uncited material. please do not allow the conservapedia commandment breakers to reign freely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sc/nthorpe ==
Why did you delete this? It is a significant town in the English East Midlands and a major centre of steel production. Just because some people have dirty minds, and CP has an absurdly oversensitive spam filter, is no reason for it not to be listed. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert ==

Sorry Dan, but I had to revert you. The name of the city is Чорнобиль or ''chornobyl'', but in the russian language it is Чернобыль or ''chernobyl''. The city is both Ukrainian and in Ukraine. I have moved the article so now the link works. Its alot like Kyiv the correct way and Kiev the wrong russian way. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I shall be informing Putin of your treason. Run! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Mitt Romney]] ==

Thanks for removing the polygamy smear. I was considering removing it, but as a Mormon myself I always get nervous that I'd be accused of trying to cover up the history of my church or something silly like that. I was just about to post on the talk page asking for the opinion of others when I saw your edit; far more efficient. :-) [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
== Flying machine revert ==

Why did you do it? My bit was accurate and on point.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:57, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Flying machine

2007-08-05T00:55:28Z

Bafi: New page: my addition of the leonardo devinci bit was accurate and on point. i'm curious as to why it was reverted? ~~~~

my addition of the leonardo devinci bit was accurate and on point. i'm curious as to why it was reverted? [[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:55, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DrFrankMitchell

2007-08-04T23:44:46Z

Bafi: New page: Dr Mitchell. I apologize for the poor treatment you've received here on behalf of the site. We are quite sensitive. regards ~~~~

Dr Mitchell. I apologize for the poor treatment you've received here on behalf of the site. We are quite sensitive. regards [[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 19:44, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

Flying machine

2007-07-17T23:20:19Z

Bafi:

'''Flying machines''' have been around for centuries. The ancients flew kites, and some of these were large enough to carry a man. Hot air balloons flew over Europe as the the twentieth century approached. Leonardo Devinci's drawing of a helicopter-like flying machine is a well known example of early ambitions to build a flying vehicle.

Just before World War I the first successful powered aircraft took off at [[Kitty Hawk]], located by the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the State of [[North Carolina]].

The first successful motor-powered manned flight was by [[Orville Wright]] on December 17, 1903. The first flight lasted 12 seconds and the airplane flew 120 feet. The whole first flight could have taken place inside the modern-day [[An-124]] cargo plane.

Later that same day, Orville's brother [[Wilbur Wright]] flew the same aircraft 852 feet in 49 seconds.

[[Category:Aircraft]]