Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-17T01:48:32Z

Bwilliston:

'''Linux Article'''
Protecting the Linux article may be a bit heavy-handed. I agree with your last edit, but the article still needs some corrections and could use more in-depth information. For example, Linux is 'open source' software, not free software, and the sentence 'Whilst desktop machines still overwhelmingly use [[Windows]] software...' should be 'Whilst desktop machines still overwhelmingly use [[Microsoft]] software...'
--[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 14 March 2007

I'll open it back up now. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Due to your excellent contributions to Conservapedia, you have been made a SYSOP. With these new privileges, you can block any troublesome users by clicking the block button next to their username. You can also revert vandalism using the method described [[Help talk:Contents|here]]. Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning. Congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Your welcome! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== Explaining reversions ==

When reverting as you did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=17371&oldid=17364 here], it is generally helpful to explain why you choose to revert. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'll do that in the future. The user in question was obviously trying to be snarky, but that's nothing I couldn't have specified. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: It didn't strike me as snarky. It seemed to me to be highly reasonable especially since there issues when we use the term "creationist" precisely what we mean, whether YEC or some other form. This is discussed briefly at [[creationism]]. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense to say someone was in a category when everyone in their time period was in that category. It would be like labeling Julius Caesar pagan. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I would dispute whether everybody was a creationist in 1841, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over, so if you wish to revert it back, feel free. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Good entry! ==

Nice entry on Henry David Thoreau! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I hope to expand on it eventually. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:32, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Tournament Chess Player ==

That's impressive that you're a tournament chess player! I liked chess but was never very good at it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I never actually started taking the game seriously until high school. It just became an addiction for me. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Wow, you play chess too? What's your rating? Can I have your name to check it out on USCF.org? Good luck- [[User:Meekrok|Meekrok]]

==Koronus==
Don't worry I unblocked him to tweak his block. I found an obscene deleted article floating around . He is now blocked for 1 year. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Edit reverted as vandalism. ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unicorn&diff=20130&oldid=20129] it was added by [[User:Conservative]] so I presume it was meant to be serious. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think that at the very least, there shouldn't be a statement that implies that the existence of unicorns is definite. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Staying up Late==

Does Jesus know you are staying up late on a Friday night standing guard over Conservapedia? Shouldn't you be out attempting to be fruitful and multiply?

== Delete and block ==

Please delete Mecha Jesus again and block the user in question. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Cheesy potatoes ==

I think it was a little trigger-happy of you to delete the article without saying anything in the discussion taking place at [[Talk:Cheesy potatoes]]. It's not too late to discuss it there now. I'm not suggesting you undelete it, but I think the creator of the article should be given a chance to explain.

Entirely guesswork on my part, but I think it was a good-faith if frivolous contribution by a youngish person. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. At Wikipedia I don't believe this would have been a valid "speedy deletion" (one performed by a sysop without discussion). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Making conservatives look bad? ==

How am i making conservatives look bad? Scooter Libby is a pariah although liberals don't want to admit it... I thought this site was about the truth--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich! ==

Poor guy! They were making him look bad in 1995 and it's back again! We need to have his reponse here! I don't want a closet liberal like Giuilani or Mitt Romney to become president!--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You'd rather have an admitted adulterer and hypocrite? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What are you trying to say?
And I've never endorsed any political candidate on Conservapedia. I am only trying to remove obvious vandalism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Good block and revert ==

Excellent block and rollback, and locking of the Bush page. Very well done! As you did, when it is an obscenity then simply put on an infinite block. We don't want that block ever expiring. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. You're absolutely right about being suspicious based on the user id (or screen name). It's amazing how 95% of the time the user id is an obvious giveaway to the bad intentions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Great move in protecting [[Ann Coulter]]. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== why did you block me? ==

The first line of that article was entirely evolutionist, I was adding the American view. --[[User:Joseph84|Joseph84]] 19:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't block you. Your entry was clearly sarcastic. I only warned you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Sex" page ==

I just made a pretty little table on the page, and then protected it from editing. So the page does exist, but without any content but the table. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Not Sure ==

I'm not quite sure. Ask Andrew, he should know. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems as though you've figured it out. How do you do it? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facebook ==

Could you send me a Facebook invite? The Email this User link is active for me. Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't get the link to work. However, you don't have to have an invite to register. I can send you the link to that actual page within the site if you register. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the info. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bad Editing ==

----

Look, I didn't delete everything written before as you allege. Compare the two and you'll see that. All of the previous contributions are there, minus grammar errors and POV stuff. Maybe you should read a little more before you jump to conclusions.... [[User:Romney4King|Romney4King]]

There are some differences, but they aren't as substantial as I thought at first, and I do see that your edits produce a well written article, so I'm going to leave it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Multiple reversions without explanation ==

User Ank mangled my contribution, which was factual. Then you go ahead and revert both his mangling of it while deleting my contribution all together. That's not fair. --[[User:Bturpin|Ben]] 15:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted everything he did because he vandalized about 15 pages and I couldn't look at all of them while keeping up with the current wave of vandalism. Feel free to re-incorporate your edits. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== You're the one being biased. ==

"Fair trade" is what the liberals use to cover up the stigma of the protectionism.

== British English ==

I don't understand how British spelling is inherently biased whereas American spelling isn't. Perhaps you'd care to explain this. [[User:PraiseTheLard|PraiseTheLard]] 17:54, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== President of the United States ==

Hi, I was just adding some details to this article, which you deleted. Don't you think there should be a bit more detail here? It just seems to me that, if this is to be an encyclopedia, it ought to have a more detailed account of how something like the Electoral College works.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

We both know the general goal of your inclusion of those statements, which is to imply that Bush's election was illegitimate. As this is a Conservative encyclopedia, we don't generally want half of the article of the Electoral College serving as a vehicle for these claims. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I was trying to revise the article so that it would *not* imply that Bush was not properly elected -- it had been vandalized before I started editing it, and had statements in it about how Bush thinks he is a king. Look at the version just before the ones I edited and you will see that I was taking that kind of stuff *out*, not putting it in!!

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proceed ahead then. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pi ==

Why did you revert my post. Please tell me where I misrepresented the Bible. Everything I added was properly cited and true. Can you prove to me that Kings 7:23 doesn't say Pi is 3? Isn't this a conservative and Christian encyclopedia? Thanks- [[User:Meekrok|Meekrok]]

Come on, we both know you're being sarcastic here. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I may have overreacted, but the page should at least mention the bible says pi is three. Censorship of the bible is definitely not what Conservapedia is about. [[User:Meekrok|Meekrok]]

As long as I can cite a Christian response to the claim (that holds to a 3.14.... value). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for dealing with that, MountainDew. I don't like it when people swear at me or on productive content.

I hope to keep doing good to this site!

In Him, --[[User:Galaxy001|Zach]][[User talk:Galaxy001|send me a message]] 02:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for calling my attention to that! There's a lot of people who want to hurt this site and we need to do all we can to combat it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reverting Pages==
How do you quickly revert pages without having to manually fix all the changes? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're a sysop, you go to recent changes, and click on "hist", then click the "revert" button. If you're not, click "hist" then the date and time of the entry which you want to edit, then click "edit", and save. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 05:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Vandals==

Has it been like this all day? I was having to deal with this for 4 hours this morning.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]18:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yep. I don't even have time to write articles anymore. I'm spending all my time dealing with this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Let's block more quickly, and lock more pages that are repeated targets of vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bob Dylan ==

Just saw your changes to [[Bob Dylan]]. While it's true he has not recorded an explicitly Christian-themed album for some years, he continues to perform the songs of this era, such as "Saved" and "In the Garden", and as far I am aware his faith has not changed or diminished during these years; indeed there is considerable evidence to the contrary; see:

http://web.utk.edu/~wparr/IsDylanStillChr.html

which has a number of direct quotes, including a recent concert at which Dylan dedicated "In the Garden" to his hero, Jesus Christ.

I don't want to get into a debate, but I think you will find this stuff reasonably solid and compelling -- if you do, would you please revert the change you made?

many thanks,

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Feel free to revert it. You seem to know more about Dylan than I do. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==

Thanks for taking care of those articles I flagged.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking and locking (protecting) ==

MountainDew, please feel free to block more quickly, and to lock ("protect") pages that you find yourself repeatedly reverting. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

MountainDew, do you recall the name of the other conservative college student? Should we make him a SYSOP? Can you recommend others for SYSOP status? The person needs only be responsible and we are not limiting this to conservatives. I just made Elamdri a SYSOP. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you may be thinking of Daniel B. Douglas, who seemed trustworthy but who joined several days ago and hasn't come back. You might also be thinking of ColinR, who was a big help for me during a wave of vandalism last night. I think he would probably make a good SYSOP. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand why you blocked the "Kangaroo" page. But could you fix the last paragraph so the scientific and religious explanations aren't co-mingled? It reads funny. Thanks. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==AwaitingTheRapture==

Did we get everything?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think so. I think the Conservapedia:Abuse was the last one that didn't say "rollback" by his name. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Salright!--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm still new to this and I'm not sure exactly how the page moves work. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Me too. Basically, I move the page, and one I move the page, I go to the offensive redirect page and delete it. That way there is no redirect page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Spoof text on [[Family Friendly]] ==

Hi, just a note to let you know that some spoofed or vandalistic text has been created at [[Family Friendly]]; this should be removed/changed and the user informed.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow! [[User:Hojimachong]] caught that already! talk about fast.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Page Move Vandalism ==

This is a serious problem; how should we go about dealing with the page-move vandals (I assume the latest three were all the same person), and how do we get the IP from the server? Conservapedia's ban-hammer needs to turn into something more like a "ban-nuke" --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Same guy too. We need to ban his IP quick. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks, Suggestion ==

MountainDew, thanks for all your blocks and cleaning up of the obscenity. Liberals are great, aren't they? We're starting to track IP addresses to report these vandals and I've posted the jail time imposed by federal law for such obscenity, so they should decline. Also, I've created more SYSOPs to help.

One little tip. When you delete an obscene entry, you might erase the message box on the reason for deletion before confirming the deletion, so that all that filth does not show up on the Recent Changes page. Otherwise the first part of the content shows up there. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Terrorism ==

What was wrong with my edit to [[terrorism]]? I know Madonna thinks the IRA wasn't a terrorist group, but the UK Government disagreed.

== Thanks for the opportunity to edit a bit ==

Thanks for the opportunity to add to "Christianity!" What a blessing! I just did a bit to get it going, just off the cuff. You might want to "close" it up as you had done before! There's always alot that can be added, but it needs to be true and accurate.

There is no greater ministry this Conservapedia can do than this!! I'm so excited for you!! Maintaining the truth of the Bible, the truth about Jesus Christ and what He has done for the world, is going to be challenged by Satan's minions the rest of our lives here. We will always have this battle. We fight our sinful flesh and our fellow Christians' sinful flesh, and the enemy. We have to make sure that what we write corresponds to what is God's written Word in Scripture. and His offer that whoesoever hungers or is thirsty, can come to Him for living water and the Bread of Life.

May the Lord bring souls to knowledge of Him through Conservapedia! May the Lord provide for the finances needed, the administration needed, so that truth can prevail. May there be no fighting amongst true Christians, but let real Christianity shine forth, the Word of God proclaimed. May the Enemy be put to flight, and my hungry hearts and open ears and minds read the words God places here, and be fed by Him. We ask this in Jesus' precious name, Amen!!

== Iraq War ==

I think you need to revert a couple of versions back. To the one where the Second Gulf War note was added. Affirmlife did heavy editing of items that were properly sourced--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Great Wall ==

Just changed the name of it... it's still there. I kept the one with the picture. Sorry for the confusion!

Ahhh... gotcha. Thanks. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Vandals and Preachers in Christianity ==
Last night there was a lot of activity in the Christianity section. Someone replaced the entry by a very opinionated sermon which denounced many Christian denominations other than the author's. On top of this there were a fair amount of vandals active that replaced the entire bit by obscenities. It might be an idea to lock it up again. And maybe warn the vandals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15 March:00 (AEST)

: There is again a lot of vandalism going on at the Christianity entry. It is probably time to lock it for a while. --[[User:Order|Order]] 6March 10:40 (AEST)

==Vandals messing up fox news and many of my edits==
MountainDew,

First of all, I want to thank you for your excellent diaries. Second, I need help. I found out about the site a few days ago, and I started contributing. But Vandals are including obscenities in the Fox News entry, and some one deleted facts from another entry that I made.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance,
--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 14:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, for the answer. I only raise the issue because I fixed it yesterday, and today it was changed again. But I think that you can decide that, and I will back you up. Thanks again.--[[User:Octaviohpaz|Octaviohpaz]] 14:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==AmesG==

Thank you. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reply fallen angels==

I put it up for deletion at the request of User:WhatWouldJesusEdit. Though I don't really think that it should be deleted, his camplaint was valid. Therefore, I thought it reasonable to put the article up for deletion so as to get some disscusion on the matter. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Hillary Clinton==

You undid one of my edits, saying "whatreallyhappened is not an acceptable source". But it wasn't cited for anything except to note that "there were allegations of a coverup." And there certainly were! And the link provided many, many pieces of evidence to explain why those allegations were so widespread. I'd understand the edit if I'd claimed that the link proved that there was a murder and a coverup, but that wasn't the claim. In fact noting that there were allegations of a coverup is so un-controversial that I could find an MSM citation noting those allegations. Would that be preferable over citing a site with a conservative bias? [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 21:48, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Bwilliston

2007-03-13T05:43:28Z

Bwilliston:

Hi! I'm new to wiki editing so mostly just making small changes here and there. Hopefully acceptable changes. Please don't hesitate to point out anything that should be done differently.

User:Bwilliston

2007-03-13T05:42:32Z

Bwilliston:

Just making my link not show up in red. :-)

Talk:Biblical creation account

2007-03-13T05:40:45Z

Bwilliston:

"This does not, however, have anything to do with the Christian idea of the Three-in-One God, i.e. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, since the concept was unknown at the time." -- Not unknown to the Author, wouldn't you say? :-) This just strikes me as an odd thing to say on a site like this. The article needs work. Presumably the allegation of a contradiction in the second paragraph needs to be removed, too. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 01:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-13T00:35:37Z

Bwilliston: /* Points */

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Noah's Ark

2007-03-10T19:07:49Z

Bwilliston: missing word ("Ron Wyatt thoroughly [examined] a site")

According to the book of Genesis, The '''Ark''' or '''Noah's Ark''' was built by [[Noah]] on the directions of God so that His creation may be preserved following the [[Great Flood]].

The Ark was constructed with [[pitched]] [[gopher wood]] and had three stories divided into multiple rooms, a window, and a door.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:14, 6:16</ref> The dimensions were three hundred [[cubit | cubits]] long by fifty cubits wide by thirty cubits high.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref>

Noah was instructed by God to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:18-7:3</ref> <ref>''Genesis'' 7:6, 7:11</ref>, God shut them all inside the Ark and started the Flood.

Many Young Earth Creationists believe that the Flood occured serveral thousand years ago and created natural wonders of the world such as the Grand Canyon. Most scientists believe that the Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years.
After forty days and forty nights of rain, the Ark was adrift for 150 days until finally the waters subsided.<ref>''Genesis'' 7:24-8:1</ref>The Ark came to rest somewhere in the mountains of Ararat in modern Turkey.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:4</ref>

It took another forty days until the waters decreased so that Noah was able to open the window and send forth a raven and a dove to see if the earth was dry enough to exit.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:14-16</ref>. For theories on the spread of animals after the flood see [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]

==Controversy==
Many people, including some Christians do not believe that Noah's Ark existed and have raised objections to the existence of the Ark and the Flood such as a lack of room for all the animals and a lack of geological evidence for a global flood. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref><ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml A Critique of Rapid Post Flood Speciation] by [[Reasons to Believe]] an [[Old Earth Creationist]] ministry</ref>. Young Earth Creationists have written a number of responses to such criticims, such as John Woodmorappe "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" which argued that it would be possible to fit all of the required animals in the ark. <ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref> .

In 1977, Ron Wyatt thoroughly examined a site on Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark <ref>http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-04.htm</ref>. However, his findings have since come under criticsm from a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists prompting [[Answers in Genesis]], one of the world's largest creationist ministries, to make a general statement that Young Earth Creationists should not use Wyatt's claims since they were at best highly dubious.<ref>http://www2.andrews.edu/~merling/</ref><ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-03-10T19:05:11Z

Bwilliston:

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hyopotheses, and most hypotheses are disporved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Ketchup

2007-03-10T18:42:56Z

Bwilliston:

The "ketchup is a vegetable" factoid is documented, but isn't it really an underhanded way of reminding people of a criticism that was made of Reagan? So in one sense it's just a fact, but in another sense it's real purpose here seems to be some veiled criticism without any counter-balancing of that criticism. Read the link cited, and you'll see things like "antiregulatory zealot" and " unsuccessful effort by the right to pursue its agenda at the expense of the nation's kids". I didn't change it because I wasn't sure if the mere fact that a link was attached meant that it had to be allowed. Certainly a more balanced link could be found. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 23:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I actually added the link having only added the last sentence of the article. (I didn't write this.) I didn't seek to find a link with an ideological agenda, I just put a link up for the sake of documenting sources. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It's hard to find a more balanced link!! But I found one and edited that part, leaving the previous link as an example of how this minor incident was politicized and became widely repeated. Does that work? For the record the quote I was looking at from the new article says: "Although catsup was not mentioned by name, the regulations did state that a catsup-like concentrate would qualify as a vegetable—so long as it was served with a healthy portion of another real vegetable, a point that got lost in the general handwringing." [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Sorry about the "USDA passed a law" mistake. I should have said something like "the USDA proposed a set of regulations that were passed into law". I still object that as it's stated it is a half-truth, and happens to be a half-truth that is popular among Reagan bashers. But it's your site, and a minor point. I'm just trying to figure out how things work around here. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 13:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Ketchup

2007-03-10T07:40:31Z

Bwilliston:

Global warming

2007-03-10T07:38:59Z

Bwilliston: spacing and punctuation (but this article needs major changes)

'''Global warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical.

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations.

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, thier bias is real and thier conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Ketchup

2007-03-10T07:35:08Z

Bwilliston:

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-10T07:25:36Z

Bwilliston:

Talk:Theory

2007-03-10T07:14:24Z

Bwilliston: Question about inconsistency?

This definition isn't consistent with other usage here, since other pages refer to the "Theory of Evolution" for example. Or look at [[Global warming]] which talks about "The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature". But the definition of "Theory" here is "A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data,[1] for which a sufficient amount of evidence (and a lack of disconfirming evidence) has been found that it would be perverse to withhold assent." So to call global warming a "theory" in this sense would be to say that it would be perverse not to agree! Something wrong here .... [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:14, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Ketchup

2007-03-10T04:04:19Z

Bwilliston: question about policy

Talk:John Kerry

2007-03-10T03:57:17Z

Bwilliston:

Citation needed relative to liberal voting record, shouldn't be too hard to find.

* First one google finds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60419-2004Jul18.html "Americans for Democratic Action, or ADA, which wants senators to earn a high rating, has a more straightforward ranking system. Each year the group identifies 20 important votes and assigns five points each time a senator votes the way ADA advocates. Kerry has a lifetime average of 92. As Republicans note, this is two points higher than Democrat Walter F. Mondale's lifetime ADA average. Mondale, the 1984 presidential nominee, is regarded as the most emphatic old-style liberal offered by Democrats in recent decades." [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 22:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Constants

2007-03-10T03:53:52Z

Bwilliston:

Sorry, I was trying to fix the math-mode exponents, and now it doesn't display correctly. In math mode if you want an exponent of 27 you need to write 10^{27} not 10^27.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TeX_markup#Subscripts.2C_superscripts.2C_integrals
But now it's worse. Did I mess something up, or is the site not configured to process math mode formulas? Sorry, someone please revert. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 22:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Constants

2007-03-10T03:47:57Z

Bwilliston: Fix typesetting of exponents in math mode

1 atm = 101.1 kPa

1.000 calorie = 4.184 Joules

1 Calorie = 1000 calories

760 torr = 1 atm

760 mm Hg = 1 atm

== ==

Atomic mass unit: 1.00 amu = 1.67 x <math>10^{-27}</math>kg

Avagadro's number: 6.02 x <math>10^{23}</math> particles/mole

Planck's constant: 6.23 x <math>10^{-34} \frac{Joules}{Hertz}</math>

R = 0.0821 <math>\frac{1 \cdot atm}{mole \cdot K}</math> or 8.314 <math>\frac{dm^3 \cdot kPa}{mole \cdot K}</math>

Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP): temperature = 273 K and pressure = 1.00 atm

== ==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+ Bond Strengths
|-
! !! Mass !! Charge
|-
| '''Proton''' || 1.67 x <math>10^-27 </math> kg || +1
|-
| '''Neutron''' || 1.67 x <math>10^-27 </math> kg || 0
|-
| '''Electron''' || 9.11 x <math>10^-31 </math> kg|| -1
|-
|}

Talk:Judicial Activism

2007-03-07T03:47:56Z

Bwilliston: pointing out possible vandalism

I have a concern with the statement about this being something limited to liberal judges. At least, from a historical standpoint.
John Marshall was hardly someone you could call liberal.
[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 22:10, 6 March 2007 (EST)

The first three lines (There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system: 1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American value 2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values) look suspiciously like vandalism. The point about judicial activism is simply that of not enforcing the laws as they were written, not about how the laws fit with conservative values. Striking down a law just because it goes against someone's values, *anyone*'s values, would be judicial activism, i.e., legislating from the bench.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-07T03:36:41Z

Bwilliston: It's not a real religion. Even wikipedia calls it a "parody religion".

The '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster''' is a parody religion invented in 2005. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as Richard Dawkins, as a modern version of Russell's teapot.

Rosetta Stone

2007-03-07T03:31:32Z

Bwilliston: typo

An egyptian writing made in 196 BC which inscribes the same message in [[hieroglyphics]] and Greek. When it was found in 1779 AD, it enabled us to translate hieroglyphics for the first time.