Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-27T20:21:43Z

Dannyhorn: Hi

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, no it isn't. :) Once you see something like that, you can never unsee it. (But I do admire your taking one for the team like that. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:28, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in other parts of the Bible, Moses' army slaughters everyone EXCEPT virgin teenaged girls. (Guess what they did to them.) And this is supposed to be the basis of our country's morality? I think I'll stick to [[Tom Paine]], thanks. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Olberman == ==

Careful, that was an awfully [[Reality-Based Community|Reality-Based]] thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

*So will Trolling, Ghoti....enjoy your vacation, ok? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hi ==

Hi there -- I've only been on Conservapedia for a couple hours, but it seems like you're frustrated with how things work here, as regards the standards for evidence. I can totally sympathize with your frustration. So I'm curious: Why do you stay? [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 16:21, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Sesame Street

2007-05-27T20:08:04Z

Dannyhorn:

[[Image:sesamestreet.jpg|200px|right|]]
'''Sesame Street''' is a television show for children on the [[PBS]] network. It has been around since 1969 and has spawned a series of movies, books, magazines, and toys. Sesame Street features [[muppet]]s interacting with adults and children in an educational setting that emphasizes learning numbers and letters. The show has won a number of [[Emmy Award]]s and is shown in over 25 languages around the world.

==Spinoffs==
Sesame Street successfully launched the career of [[Jim Henson]]'s muppets and has produced countless imitations and variations. A number of Sesame Street movies have been made, including ''Follow That Bird'' and ''The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland''. Sesame Street characters have made appearances on a number of game and talk shows. Many stuffed animals of the Sesame Street characters are sold in amazing quantities and the [[Tickle Me Elmo]] is considered to be one of the best selling toys of all time. A number of musical albums have been released by Sesame Street characters, most notably ''Bert's Blockbusters'' which scored an unexpected success in 1974 with the single ''Doin' the Pigeon''.<ref>[http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/sesame_street/berts_blockbusters/ Bert's Blockbusters - #4 Album of 1974]</ref>

==Muppet Characters==
* [[Big Bird]]
* [[Cookie Monster]]
* [[Snuffleupagus]]
* [[Oscar the Grouch]]
* [[Elmo]]
* [[The Count]]
* [[Bert & Ernie]]
* [[Telly Monster]]
* [[Kermit the Frog]]
* [[Grover]]
* [[Miss Piggy]]

==Controversy==
Sesame Street has been accused of having a liberal bias and criticized for encouraging children to watch television. The characters Bert and Ernie are often recognized as a homosexual couple, as they live in the same house and share clothing and a bedroom. <ref>[http://www.northernstar.info/articles/?id=989 Homosexual Themes corrupt Sesame Street]</ref> However, PBS has repeatedly denied this. <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/gaymupp.htm Urban Legends]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestreet/ Sesame Street homepage]
* [http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Ernie_and_Bert's_Relationship Muppet Wiki: Ernie and Bert's Relationship]

User talk:SharonS

2007-05-27T18:16:52Z

Dannyhorn: /* Number of articles */

Welcome to SharonS's talk page. Please enter any messages you have for me below.'''

'''Archives:''' [[User talk:SharonS/Archive1|1]]

==Formatting==

Excuse me, but could you fix the formatting error on this article [[American Values Club]]?? I am not sure how to.

thank you and God bless-

[[User:Truthseeker101|Truthseeker101]] 22:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Geometry terms ==

Hi there, I just noticed you have been playing with the geometry term list things, but I'm not sure where you are going with it.

Can I suggest that (like the other "term lists") they simply be removed? Categories are a much better way to group subjects on a wiki, since they are automatic. I did something like that to, I think, a musical instrument list that started from the "index" page. Example: say someone writes a nice article on a new geometry term. They would have to know, somehow, to add it to the term list. But any editor is likely to add <nowiki>[[category:geometry]]</nowiki>, which automatically adds it to the nicely alphabetized category page, and creates a link to that page as well.

The term lists may have served a function in the early days of the site, but are a redundant workaround when categories are available.

Just a thought. Oh, and PS, hope you're having a lovely Sunday! [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:I think the categories are a great idea. I keep forgetting to put them on the pages I edit! I think the indexes are necessary for some of the very broad subjects (such as the history terms). These indexes are geared towards students and are intended to help them in their studies by outlining the most important facts they need to know. Having all the terms in one category is pretty overwhelming, and the alphabetical indexes help to divide the terms into smaller chunks. Also, the Indexes are much more accessible for students who don't know much about Wikis and how to use the categories, since they are right on the side bar. I personally prefer the categories, but think we should keep the indexes for the time being. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 21:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I will do that next time. Is there anything else I should know?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Thank you. I will try my best.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==Forged Signature==

I was moving another user's comments from my user page to my talk page. That's all. [[User:Pendayho|Pendejo]] 20:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== notice ==

Please direct new Sysops here: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Vandalism? ==

(Gulik2, here.) Just because you didn't LIKE the facts I posted, that doesn't make them 'vandalism'. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 17:42, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Three days or banned again, eh? Hey, no pressure getting in the way of doing actual RESEARCH or anything there... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sharon, the above idiot was blocked, for doing what he did best, which was not research (like he claimed we didn't), not edit well (wrote like Dick and Jane), and just plain stupid all over. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Nice new entry! ==

Sharon, terrific new entry on [[perfectly contestable markets]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks! We have only 46 entries left to write before we reach 10,000! ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks for fixing that spelling so quickly on [[complementary inputs]]!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:47, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You're welcome. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 10:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==...as jazz is to 4/4 time... ([[Abstract Expressionism]])==
I don't think that's right. 4/4 time is very common in jazz. Think of ''Basin Street Blues'' or ''St. James Infirmary.'' [http://www.musicarrangers.com/star-theory/t19.htm This page] says "Common time is 4 - 4 is the traditional time signature for ballads, rock, jazz, Latin American, Spanish paso doble and many other idioms," and [http://www.pbs.org/theblues/classroom/essays12bar.html virtually all blues] is in 4/4 time. I think even boogie-woogie (as in Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie") is usually notated as 4/4 time, although maybe it should be 8/8.

In fact Dave Brubeck's famous 1959 album ''Time Out'' and his signature piece ''Take Five'' were so attention-getting precisely because they explored rhythms other than 4/4.

Unless I'm missing your point... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:You're right. I guess it should say something more like "as jazz is to Mozart". The point is that Abstract Expressionism went drastically away from the traditions for art. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 18:30, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Please check your email.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

==Witchcraft==
<<Stop filling articles with liberal bias, as you did in Witchcraft. ~ SharonTalk 10:23, 23 May 2007 (EDT)>

Are you interested in the truth or do you honestly look at the world through rose colored glasses tinted to view only what you want to see?

I typed the truth, not a bit of bias was in what I said. Nor am I a witch. I am a Druid, which you had no problem allowing Druidry to be placed under Wicca as a subsection if Wicca. Druidry is NOT a form of Wicca and never has been. Wicca is less than a hundred years old with Druidry dating back to the Hibernia and the ancient British Isles. My family had to hide for hundreds of years because of the bigotry and bias coming from Christian zealots that claimed anything that was not Christian was evil.
If you are so sure Witchcraft and its followers are evil, then why even allow anything to be written on this list. It would seem you are the self appointed list monitor and guardian of the truth. Well the truth is regardless of what you believe is that a witch is not a devil worshipper or evil. It would appear to me the bias is on your part and your denial of letting anyone else say anything that is contrary to your beliefs.

Cha tèid nì sam bith san dòrn dùinte.

Lady Caillech Beara
Druid Council of Elders
An Clare
County An Clare
Ireland

:Interestingly, I don't believe there '''is''' a "Druid Council of Elders" in Co. Clare. Unless you have perhaps just created it. Perhaps you would enlighten me :) [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:48, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually I didn't say the Druid Council of Elders was in An Clare, but merely that I am from An Clare and now live in the United States. I am actually part of the House of Keltria.

The Henge of Keltria has a complex structure. The day-to-day running of the Henge is done by a Board of Trustees, which at this time should be composed of three or more members from the membership of the Henge of Keltria elected for three years terms, and four officers: President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. All but the treasurer are elected by the membership at the annual meeting.

Theological direction is provided by a Council of Elders. This council is composed of no more than nine members elected from and by the active members of the Ring of Oak. The Council of Elders can override the Board of Directors and officers in all matters pertaining to the spiritual and philosophical goals of the organization. The spokesperson of the Council of Elders is the Arch-druid, who is elected from the Council of Elders.
Groves may be created by three active members. Groves must apply to the Board of Trustees for a charter and be approved by the Council of Elders to become a Keltrian grove. A newly formed Grove is designated a “seed-grove” until the Council of Elders chooses to remove that designation after review of grove activities. Groves must meet at least once a month.

If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Birch (or higher), then the grove may be designated as a “Birch Grove.” If the grove leader is a member of the Ring of Yew and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Birch or higher, a grove may be designated as a “Yew Grove.” If a grove leader is a member of the Ring of Oak and at least two other members of the Grove are members of the Ring of Yew or higher, a grove may be designated as an “Oak Grove.”

Keltrian Study Groups are informal groups of people who gather to study Keltrian Druidism and regularly practice Keltrian ritual that may be formed by any member.

Hope this explains it better.

Cailli

::Conservapedia is biased towards Conservative values and Christianity. The original witchcraft article reflected the Christian view of Witchcraft. Your edits added some good information, but they removed the Christian bias, and reflected a "tolerant" liberal view. I'm going to ask the Conservapedia Student Panel ([[User:CPanel]]) what they think about this issue. Thanks, ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 11:49, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Geology Terms==
I created '''Category:Geology Indexes''' for a list of Geology terms. I would like this index to be similar to your one for the History terms, but I'm not sure how to continue. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 19:14, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I figured out how to do this myself. [[Template:Geology Index]]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 11:32, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Great! I really enjoyed reading some of your pages on geology. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 15:22, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Number of articles ==

Hi Sharon: This is my first visit to Conservapedia. I was looking around at the site, and I noticed that the number of articles that you refer to on the main page doesn't match up with the current statistics on [[Special:Statistics]]. There's actually an easier way to keep the number of article pages updated on your main page, without having to update it by hand. You can add this template: <nowiki>{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}</nowiki>, which does it automatically. According to the site statistics, there's currently {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} pages on Conservapedia.

I don't mean any criticism; I just wanted to point out that there's an easier way. Unfortunately, that would mean possibly reserving the 10,000 articles celebration until the wiki's actually hit that milestone. Anyway, that's all -- talk to you later! [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wiki's statistics are too imprecise for us, and favor long articles over short ones. We use precise calculations here without the Wiki bias. But thanks for your suggestion, and Godspeed to you, Dannyhorn!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:14, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, okay. I'm curious -- how do you make those calculations? As far as I know, the wiki statistics are just based on the number of articles with at least one internal link, not counting redirects. Are you guys counting redirects too? [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 14:16, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:SharonS

2007-05-27T18:09:44Z

Dannyhorn: Number of articles