Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:DamianJohn

2012-02-08T20:53:30Z

DianaD: /* Courtesy and decorum */

Hi Damian, you joined conservapedia before me however let me welcome you!
The reason I post here is to let you know, as you created the page, that I made some changes to the Destiny Church page.
Just a heads up! God bless.[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

:Got your message. A few people argue with some of my edits too, although I do try to go by what the better historians have to say.
:Best wishes.[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 19:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== World history guide ==

The basics are just about done, huh?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 18:18, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah we have done pretty well. I'm gonna keep adding to the more advanced stuff when I get spare time. It is hard to get into a sentence or two basic information and something interesting as well. I have learnt a few things (eg I thought the Huns were from Germany - apparently not). --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yeah. I'll help you with that soon.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 22:54, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
== Tonight ==
: Final of the Tri-Nations. Kiwi in Oz makes me nervous [[User:Aortuso|Aortuso]] 22:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
::Yes indeed. I think we should be too strong but you never know with those wily Aussies. Hosea Gear unlucky to miss out but still a pretty good team. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== Extra privileges granted ==

Congratulations, the additional privileges of blocking and rolling back have been added to your account!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:11, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Courtesy and decorum==

Please do not pick fights with other contributors. After you've made your point, move on. Rob Smith is an old friend. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:15, 2 February 2012 (EST)
:I am sorry Ed that you feel I have picked a fight with Rob. I do not think that is a fair appraisal of the situation. Rob and I have had a love/hate relationship for perhaps as long as you have, and he is well aware that his continual insulting of me and my country was inappropriate behaviour for THIS site. The matter has been dealt with and I am not entirely sure why you have chosen to fan the flames more. In any case I shall assume that you act in good faith and will let the matter drop; confused as I am by your input. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:22, 3 February 2012 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

User talk:PhilipN

2012-02-08T20:52:58Z

DianaD: /* City template */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:46, 17 November 2011 (EST)}}

==City template==
Definitely on the right track. Suggestions: add "province" (i.e for Canadian cities); change "mayor" to "current mayor"; add "charter" for date the city was first given a charter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Done ! There are many more info we could provide for a city but I think we should keep to the essential. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:29, 27 December 2011 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Song titles VS album titles ==

Typically, following most style guides, song titles go "in quotation marks," album titles ''in italics.'' [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 16:46, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi ScottDG, which articles are you referring to ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:47, 27 December 2011 (EST)
::[[Dire Straits]], for one. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is true. I did not write this article, I just added the infobox but I will be careful about this now. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:10, 27 December 2011 (EST)

==Image requests==
A slight change from what you requested. I will look on Flickr for images released for free use via Creative Commons...so far I uploaded two for you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 28 December 2011 (EST)
::Thanks a lot, I will try to be more careful about which images I choose in the future. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:44, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted to blocking privileges, and also "rollback" privileges to make it easier to revert vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 29 December 2011 (EST)
:Thanks Andy, I will try to use it wisely. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:23, 29 December 2011 (EST)

== Letting you off the hook! ==

Hi, it's Bob Servant here. Your website is so sad and pathetic - we're not going to mention you in our new book. Sorry guys.

[[User:BobGS|BobGS]] 19:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Hmmm. Philip, have a look at [http://bobservant.com/about.html this].--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 19:44, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::Great catch, good job blocking him, I had my suspicions but I let him a chance.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Alright. For that, I will refrain from vandalizing. The thing I am trying to achieve is the realization that until people decide to work together instead of warring, that nothing is truly going to be accomplished. However, this is a large goal, I admit. [[User:Mangoluv|Mangoluv]] 16:16, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Good luck with that !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:18, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

I made a mistake in the title for the entry Evergreen State College, and thank you for the correction! [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 17:38, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:You're welcome --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:40, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== vandal rash ==

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

Recentchanges is filled with vandals.

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

Can we do a checkuser? --[[User:JonM|JonM]] 23:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Hi Jon, I do not have access to the checkUser, you may want to check this list: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dcheckuser%26amp%3Blimit%3D50]%2E --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:49, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== World Heritage Sites ==
: Fine, thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:40, 24 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:PhilipN

2012-02-08T20:52:39Z

DianaD: /* vandal rash */

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:46, 17 November 2011 (EST)}}

==City template==
Definitely on the right track. Suggestions: add "province" (i.e for Canadian cities); change "mayor" to "current mayor"; add "charter" for date the city was first given a charter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Done ! There are many more info we could provide for a city but I think we should keep to the essential. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:29, 27 December 2011 (EST)

== Song titles VS album titles ==

Typically, following most style guides, song titles go "in quotation marks," album titles ''in italics.'' [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 16:46, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi ScottDG, which articles are you referring to ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:47, 27 December 2011 (EST)
::[[Dire Straits]], for one. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is true. I did not write this article, I just added the infobox but I will be careful about this now. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:10, 27 December 2011 (EST)

==Image requests==
A slight change from what you requested. I will look on Flickr for images released for free use via Creative Commons...so far I uploaded two for you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 28 December 2011 (EST)
::Thanks a lot, I will try to be more careful about which images I choose in the future. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:44, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted to blocking privileges, and also "rollback" privileges to make it easier to revert vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 29 December 2011 (EST)
:Thanks Andy, I will try to use it wisely. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:23, 29 December 2011 (EST)

== Letting you off the hook! ==

Hi, it's Bob Servant here. Your website is so sad and pathetic - we're not going to mention you in our new book. Sorry guys.

[[User:BobGS|BobGS]] 19:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Hmmm. Philip, have a look at [http://bobservant.com/about.html this].--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 19:44, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::Great catch, good job blocking him, I had my suspicions but I let him a chance.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Alright. For that, I will refrain from vandalizing. The thing I am trying to achieve is the realization that until people decide to work together instead of warring, that nothing is truly going to be accomplished. However, this is a large goal, I admit. [[User:Mangoluv|Mangoluv]] 16:16, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Good luck with that !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:18, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

I made a mistake in the title for the entry Evergreen State College, and thank you for the correction! [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 17:38, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:You're welcome --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:40, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== vandal rash ==

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

Recentchanges is filled with vandals.

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

Can we do a checkuser? --[[User:JonM|JonM]] 23:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Hi Jon, I do not have access to the checkUser, you may want to check this list: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dcheckuser%26amp%3Blimit%3D50]%2E --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:49, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== World Heritage Sites ==
: Fine, thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:40, 24 January 2012 (EST)

User talk:WesleyS

2012-02-08T20:51:09Z

DianaD: /* Thanks! */

[[User talk:WesleyS/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== Morning.... ==

Would you please take a look and see if these are something we need? If not, let me know, and I will delete them. Thanks!
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Egyptian_Mythology]
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Egyptian_Deities&action=history]

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)
:I'd say delete [[:Category:Egyptian Deities]] and place the contents in [[:Category:Egyptian Mythology]], as there are some other pages in the [[:Category:Mythology]] we can put in there as well. Essentially, almost anything that qualifies as Egyptian mythology will also be Egyptian deities. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 10:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

==Categegories==
Hi Wesley,
So when you have a main category and a subcategory, is it alright to use both? Example, I want to place [[Creation Care]] under the new category "Environmental Stewardship." Creation Care is already under environment. So should I just add the new category?? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:02, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Why not? I don't know of any current policies against this. All it does is increase the exposure of the article. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]][[User_talk:CPWebmaster|Talk]] 21:10, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::Great! Will do then. Thanks. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:13, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::The more categories (within reason!) the easier for people to search! :-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::I agree. In some of the larger categories (Politics, Science) it is probably best to subcategorize as much as possible without keeping the articles in the main category. Environment is, in itself, a subcategory of a larger one, Science, so placing [[Creation Care]] under both Environment and the new (sub)subcategory is fine in my book. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:11, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I moved Horatius Bonar from Cat: Sacred Music. I am trying to keep sacred music as a category for its types and forms, not for individual pieces of music, composers, hymn writers and the like. Perhaps there should be a Cat started for hymn writers...didn't I see Charles Wesley somewhere? BTW I just love ''"Categegories"''[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:Another word for the list, eh? Anyhow, your move was justified. I didn't see the other category. If we can round up enough pages for the Hymn Writers category, then by all means, go for it. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::Please make sure "Sacred Music" is under the SuperCats "Religion" and "Music", okay? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:45, 24 February 2009 (EST)
:::Sacred Music has been placed under "Musical Genres" and "Religious Songs". [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 22:08, 24 February 2009 (EST)

== Nutter ==

Do we have a "nutter" category, like for the criminally insane of terminally moronic crazies, like Phelps? Seems unfair (although fun to see them froth at the mouth whenever I re-add that category to him) to liberals to actually, really saddle them with the likes of him.... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:19, 26 February 2009 (EST)
:I'm pretty sure we don't, but I'm sure there are other articles deserving of such a title elsewhere within the site. Anyone come to mind? If so, let me know and I'll throw something together. Phelp's talk page has filled out quite nicely lately, hasn't it? Lots of debating. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

==Busy day, eh?==
Lot of signings, I gather. Denver got Brian Dawkins :), best of luck with your signings. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes, very busy. Also very surprising that Philadelphia gave up 3 of their top DBs (Dawkins, Sheppard, Considine). The Steelers generally aren't very active in the free agent market, at least for big names. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 00:40, 1 March 2009 (EST)

== De-Orphaned ==

Is it really appropriate to "de-orphan" a talk page to the article in its own talk page? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:21, 1 March 2009 (EST)
:Probably not. I was just trying to see if it worked. I'll undo it. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:57, 1 March 2009 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

Could you block that Badger fellow? He made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chemical_Ideas%2C_Salters&curid=87686&diff=634450&oldid=634446 this] interesting edit. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Thanks, that textbook is close to my heart. I'd like to say 'muy gracias' to sound cool, but I don't know how. Alas. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:No problem. I'm actually rather unfamiliar with that particular text, but I'm sure it isn't some Communist propaganda. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 15:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::It's my textbook. Safe to say I've seen no hammer and sickle yet, but maybe they've hidden the communist message very carefully. They do have a section on Mendeleyev though, so I'll be extra vigilant. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:35, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== Thanks! ==

For catching that return vandal, Wes. I added an email block on that "psy-troll" sock of a sock RonSt. I think the average age/maturity of that vandal site is down to 12! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:Sure seems like it. The name looked too similar to yesterday's idiocy to be anyone else. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 18:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Rocky Bleier ==

[[Rocky Bleier]] is a big hero of mine also. I've thought of doing an entry about him, and even having him speak at an event. Thanks for taking more initiative than I did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly. I've had the opportunity to meet him once (easy because he and I live in Pittsburgh) and he truly is an inspirational person. Feel free to add to the page if you wish. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I may follow up and ask him to speak at an event in that area sometime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your superb work in connection with the blocks and unblocks this morning! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
:Absolutely. I'm glad it happened when I was near my desk at work. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 20:41, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

== Unblock ==

Thank you partners! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:59, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
:No problem. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 10:03, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

==Template unlocked==
Done. Please notify me when you're done so I can lock it again. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, it is done. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 17:59, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Miami done too. Sorry so long, busy tonight. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:28, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

=={{tl|age}} template==

Hi, Wesley. You've done wonderful work on categories. They say every cat has nine lives, but you've given some of our cats much more than that! ;-)

I've recently incorporated [[Template:Age]] into some of those infoboxes that we use in certain biographical articles. Would you like to team up with me and set some of these up?

Just enter the date of birth in year|month|day format in the template. For example, a person born on January 1st, 1970 would be {{age|1970|1|1}} years old. And someone born on March 22, 1984 would be {{age|1984|3|22}}.

There is a slot in a lot of the infobox templates for the age. Add it like this:
:<nowiki>age={{age|1977|8|1}}</nowiki> (Shows up as Age {{age|1977|8|1}})

Clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks, and I am willing to help. It could also work in the main areas of articles, for those lacking infoboxes. And I assume that this is for living people only? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::ROTFL!!!! Yes :-) The age template is only for living people. Otherwise Mozart would be how old now? <grin> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Final Four ==

How's your bracket look? --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 09:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)
:Everyone is still intact in the Elite 8. It's only a matter of time until the upsets start pouring in. I have Louisville and North Carolina in the finals. Pitt loses to Villanova in the 8. That's what my head thinks. My heart says Pitt all the way!! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 11:24, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

==Sorry to see you go!==
You have been indefatigable in your efforts; and have proven that we libs cannot be all tarred with the same brush. Cheers, good luck and take care! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:46, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you, Wesley ==

You have indeed shown that someone of good intent can indeed progress here, and even flourish. Thank you for all your contributions, especially with the categories! I am locking your User page, unless you ask for it to be deleted, or until you signal wanting to return, which I hope you will do at some point. Good luck to you, you will be missed. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:46, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

: WesleyS, thanks for all your efforts, and we'll miss you. It's ironic that you're leaving just as more evidence of the enormous advantages of conservative learning are coming in (see [[Talk:World History Midterm Exam]]).

: Upon reflection, I hope you'll agree that your time spent here was beneficial to others and to you. Assuming an absence of unexpected [[Parthian Shots]], you're welcome back anytime. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

::Wesley, I am really sorry to see you leave. I would like to heartily thank you - both for your contributions here and friendship in general. I wish you all the best for the future and would like to think of this not so much as ''sayonara'' as ''ja mate ne''! (That is just a sneaky way to have you stay in touch, in order to receive the translation!) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 04:11, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks a lot with the rosters, man. I won't forget your kindness, you'll always be on my favorite users list (if that means anything). [[User:JY23|JY23]] 19:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Is he back? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::He is, in a semi-retired fashion. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 15:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Extra privileges granted ==

Your account has just received blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 09:27, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
==Thanks!==
Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my page. I hope that guy got blocked for it. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:10, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:No problem. Vandals go after anybody and everybody, no matter what wiki you edit. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 21:41, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

User talk:Jpatt

2012-02-08T20:49:34Z

DianaD: /* MPR */

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Archive 2011 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]

== Blank3r ==

Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Adambro==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

== Rubio ==

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

== MPR ==

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-08T20:48:30Z

DianaD: /* Atheists and surprises */

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Hey Conserapedos – Lay off Andy! ==

We liberal atheists love conservapedia for its entertainment value – and Andy’s latest ‘mystery’ article ranks alongside Ken’s hilarious confused ramblings.

So leave him alone – don’t spoil this wonderful site. The last thing we want is this website to have any credibility!

And remember - conservatives are less intelligent than liberals.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Sorry guys…. 

<references/>