User talk:VargasMilan

2016-01-20T23:06:18Z

CHRONICfarting: 1125px

[[File:ASchlafly.JPG|1125px]]

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll do some more then. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:01, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
::Thanks. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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 [[Global atheism|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. :) [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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 [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE]and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=GB&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=AU&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= 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 [[Atheism and politics|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll compress them if you like. Thanks for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:40, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
::OK, I just compressed one. The footnote to the Marxism website. You can see what I did. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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? [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

== spammer on the loose ==

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

::I'm [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AVargasMilan&year=&month=-1| pretty sure you do have blocking powers]. Did Andy not congratulate you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:32, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::We now have confirmation direct from Andy. It's on [[User_talk:SamHB | my talk page]]. Go have a look. He appreciates your work. (As do I.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:01, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

== News maybe? ==
I found this article on cracked.com 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. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:20, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

:Thanks, I'll look into it. But how do you think we would look linking to ''Cracked'' on the front page? [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:MontanaMax|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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 -> http://dudl.me/ Vandals use it all the time on major sites. -[[User:MontanaMax|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: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=0 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:14, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
::I started the work by deorphanizing the [[African Burial Ground]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:23, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

== Relativity ==

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 :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:13, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

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

== another spammer on the loose ==

Check RC. I'm sure you would have noticed it pretty soon. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:30, 30 November 2014 (EST)
:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|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!

[[User:SamHB|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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 <s>garbage</s> writing is. [[User:SamHB|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. [[User:SamHB|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' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Project ==

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: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#A_project_for_active_editors_to_collaborate_on The collaborative project]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:04, 25 December 2014 (EST)
==Survivalblog==
Thank you for your edits. Don't you think that this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Survival_Blog&curid=132924&diff=1131585&oldid=1131584] 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, [[User:Wschact|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, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:53, 13 January 2015 (EST)

== Conservative vouched for this person. ==

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

:They edited together consecutively within the space of one or two minutes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 14 January 2015 (EST)

::Sorry, I didn't know that ''not objecting to'' means ''vouching for''. --[[User:AugustO|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.[[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:57, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

== Fixed typo on main page ==

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

==References==
<references/>

== 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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

== I just sent you an email ==

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

:Thanks for the welcome. I sent you a reply regarding what you said in your e-mail. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a followup email. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Burke39|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.[[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:29, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

::But thank you for your positive contributions. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. 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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], 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. [[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Christian Science==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] 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. [[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Burke39|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? [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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). [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Soviet Union ==

The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], 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? [[User:Burke39|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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 17 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks for the work you did so far on the article. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:16, 18 May 2015 (EDT)

::You're welcome. I did some more footnoting for the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 03:54, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Thanks for footnoting the entire article. Your assistance is much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:01, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

==Thanks==
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. [[User:SamHB|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:03, 23 May 2015 (EDT)

== E=mc^2 ==

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?

[[User:SamHB|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? [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:04, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

== re: Militant atheism article ==

VargasMilan,

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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 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. [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:SamHB|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]]''
::[[User:SamHB|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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:03, 8 July 2015 (EDT)

:You're welcome. Just remove the brackets? [[User:VargasMilan|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. [[User:Conservative|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: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/linkchecker/ or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/check-my-links/ojkcdipcgfaekbeaelaapakgnjflfglf?hl=en-GB ), 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.[[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:53, 19 July 2015 (EDT)

== I sent you an email ==

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 15:08, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

== Xephos ==

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

== Good block ==

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

== Terrific block and reverts ==

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

:You're welcome, Andy. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:44, 28 September 2015 (EDT)

:They didn't just do that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 00:01, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

:::If you're going to try, I think you should notify the user first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:08, 29 September 2015 (EDT)

== re: Brent Bozell ==

Made the change you requested about Brent Bozell on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RyanFT|RyanFT]] ([[User talk:RyanFT|talk]]) 08:54, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:VargasMilan

User:VargasMilan