Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Left-wing violence in the Trump era (2021)

2022-03-07T17:39:20Z

LucasRoberts2: fixed double redirect

#REDIRECT [[Left-wing violence under the Biden junta (2021-22)]]

Transgender activism

2022-03-06T19:06:50Z

LucasRoberts2:

[[File:Progressive caucus.png|right|175px]]
'''Transgender activism''' is based on the [[pseudoscientific]] claim that a person who feels they have been "born into the wrong body" has special rights, for example, to be addressed with certain pronouns at the threat of [[prosecution]], or the right to use public toilet facilities of their opposite birth gender. Transgender activism also includes the attempts of government and non-governmental agencies to sexualize and recruit small children into the homosexual lifestyle without parental consent.

==Anti-Trans activism==

Radical Lesbian Feminist Academic Janice Raymond ascribed transsexuality to a "Patriarchal [[Fifth Column]]", which is "infiltrating womens’ space" and “raping womens’ bodies” in her book ''The Transsexual Empire - Making of the She Male''. Her report, commissioned by the Carter Administration providing health services to transsexuals, effectively eliminated federal and some states' public aid for anything related to transsexual or transgendered conditions.

[[J. Michael Bailey]], a psychology professor and sex researcher at Northwestern University, published a book called ''The Man Who Would Be Queen'' which sharply disagrees with commonly proposed transsexual models. Dr. Bailey argued that sex changes are motivated primarily by sexual interests and not by the idea of a [[gender identity]] of one sex in the body of the other.<ref name=ManQueen>[http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/faculty/work/dreger/controversy_tmwwbq.pdf The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age] - Alice D. Dreger, Ph.D.</ref>

Dr. Alice D. Dreger wrote:
*In his work on transsexualism, Blanchard argued that there are actually two types of male-to-female transsexuals, with autogynephiles being one type and “[[homosexual]] transsexuals” being the other. ... he argued that male-to-female homosexual transsexuals who opt to undergo sex reassignment do so, in part, because being a woman makes more sense than trying to live as a very effeminate man attracted to heterosexual men.<ref name=ManQueen/>

While critical of the common transsexual model, Bailey states in his book that he believes sex changes should be performed. Homosexual transsexuals being extremely effeminate to begin with come into constant conflict against society's expectations, although after taking up the gender roles of a woman, they are then able to express themselves more naturally, and typically integrate with society better afterward. Autogynephiles though, do not integrate better with society after changing to a woman, however, the empirical evidence shows a typical positive change in the person's mental health, despite their regressing from general society.<ref name=ManQueen/>

Other notable people who agree with the position that Bailey presents, are Anne Lawrence, and Ray Blanchard. All of these people have also been subjected to harassment and intimidation by many transgender activists for presenting a model of transsexuality that they find offensive.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25972 Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender--Whatever], [[Gary Bauer]], ''[[Human Events]]'', April 11, 2008
*Shupe, Jamie (March 10, 2019). [https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/10/i-was-americas-first-non-binary-person-it-was-all-a-sham/ I Was America’s First ‘Nonbinary’ Person. It Was All a Sham.] ''The Daily Signal''. Retrieved April 15, 2019.

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Activism]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Snopes.com

2022-03-06T14:21:34Z

LucasRoberts2: changed 'much intentionally' to 'intentionally'

'''Snopes.com''' is a [[liberal]] website that was originally devoted to collecting and debunking [[urban legend]]s. It was started in 1997 by husband and wife team Barbara and David Mikkelson. Because the Mikkelson's have no formal background or experience in investigative research, it is filled with intentionally inaccurate information. The site is popular with liberals,<ref>Bokhari, Allum (July 25, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/07/25/left-loves-snopes/ BOKHARI: Why The Left Loves Snopes]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 25, 2017.</ref> and it tends to explain away all criticism toward liberal politicians and public figures while giving [[conservatives]] the hatchet job. In 2016, Snopes spent the entire year unsuccessfully trying to defend [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/</ref><ref>https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/</ref><ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262720/snopes-attack-front-page-shows-how-incompetent-it-daniel-greenfield</ref><ref>
http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/20/snopes-vs-daily-caller-fact-checker-hit-as-hillary-backer/</ref><ref>https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/</ref><ref>http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/</ref><ref>[http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/snopes-got-snoped/60681 Snopes Got Snoped]</ref> At the same time, Snopes has defended some conservatives, such as its refutation that Milwaukee Sheriff [[David Clarke]] wears "fake medals,"<ref>Palma, Bethania (May 23, 2017). [http://www.snopes.com/david-clarke-military-medals/ Does Sheriff David Clarke Wear 'Fake' Military Medals?]. ''Snopes''. Retrieved May 25, 2017.</ref> the claim that the Polish first lady did not shake U.S. President [[Donald Trump]]'s hand.<ref>MacGuill, Dan (July 8, 2017). [http://www.snopes.com/polish-first-lady-trump-handshake/ Did Poland's First Lady Refuse to Shake Donald Trump's Hand?] ''Snopes''. Retrieved July 9, 2017.</ref> and even admitted that Trump is a victim of mainstream media [[fake news]].<ref>Scarborough, Rowan (July 17, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/17/snopes-publishes-favorable-donald-trump-report/ Snopes publishes favorable Trump report]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved July 17, 2017.</ref> Snopes has attempted to "fact-check" intentionally satirical articles from ''[[The Babylon Bee]]''.<ref>https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1154465670660329472</ref><ref>Adams, Becket (August 19, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/snopes-promotes-junk-science-study-in-a-continuation-of-its-bizarre-grudge-against-the-babylon-bee Snopes promotes junk science study in a continuation of its bizarre grudge against the ''Babylon Bee'']. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 19, 2019.</ref>

In July 2017, a financial dispute with an advertising firm forced Snopes to seek crowd-sourced funding. They raised $500,000 on their first day. Also, it has been alleged that Mikkelson has been embezzling company funds to spend on personal expenses and [[prostitute]]s. <ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730092/Snopes-brink-founder-accused-fraud-lying.html 'Fact checking' website Snopes on verge of collapse after founder is accused of fraud, DailyMail, July 26, 2017]</ref>

Mikkelson has been accused of rape and embezzling $100,000 that was spent on [[prostitute]]s.<ref>https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/raped-every-morning-snopes-founder-mikkelson-accused-daily-sexual-assaults-second-wife-former-sex-worker/</ref>

==[[Dana Loesch]] incident==
In March 2018, having been abusively targeted on Twitter indirectly by liberal activists who couldn't meet her arguments on the issues (like David Hogg, who claimed she "controlled" the NRA), radio host and [[2nd Amendment]] advocate [[Dana Loesch]] joined with other targets of abuse of free speech to warn that they would watch and report on the [[Oscars]] for slights and more serious verbal attacks on America's supporters and its sovereignty.

Brooke Binkowsky, managing editor of Snopes, unprofessionally made an unsolicited reply with a deliberate (and inaccurate) personal slight from her Twitter account with no informational value and surely none regarding fact-checking or targeted harassment of those expressing faithfulness to their country, rather only making a "statement" of her immaturity by joining in on the abuse.<ref>J., Sam (March 5, 2018). [https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/03/05/fact-you-suck-dana-loesch-takes-snopes-managing-editor-to-the-shed-for-lame-personal-attack/ "Fact, YOU SUCK: Dana Loesch takes Snopes’ managing editor to the SHED for lame personal attack"]. ''Twitchy'' website.</ref>

==Intentionally inaccurate/misleading information==

*In 2016, the site tried to deny the basic fact that Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist and was later heard laughing about the case in an audiotape provided by the ''Washington Free Beacon''. The site rated this basic fact as "mostly false."<ref>https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/</ref>

*Snopes is skeptical about a great number of different topics. When it comes to [[Barack Obama]], they have all the answers even though his records are sealed from the public.

*They reference Obama's autobiography ''Dreams From My Father'' as a debunking source. This despite the book was ghostwritten by domestic terrorist [[Bill Ayers]].<ref>[https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/jack-cashill-vindicated-bill-ayers-book-promotion-event-announces/ "Shock confession: Bill Ayers reveals he is author of ''Dreams From My Father'' in latest book".] ''The Gateway Pundit'' website, November 20, 2013]</ref> Controversial subjects such as his birth certificate, Obama's 1981 Trip To Pakistan using a U.S. passport, his college records, social security number, law license, etc., Snopes knows what hundreds of lawsuits have unable to unseal by the courts.

*Snopes calls concerns about deaths attributed to the [[HPV vaccine]] false despite CDC whistleblower publicly stating otherwise.<ref>[http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/can-snopes-be-trusted-on-health-issues/ Can Snopes be Trusted on Health Issues?, Healthimpactnews, September 3, 2014]</ref>

*Voter Fraud in 2012 was non-existent according to Snopes <ref>[http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp 2012 Voter Fraud, Snopes.com]</ref> except they ignore existing cases such as 35,000 instances of double voting in N. Carolina.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374882/nc-state-board-finds-more-35k-incidents-double-voting-2012-andrew-johnson N.C. State Board Finds More than 35K Incidents of ‘Double Voting’ in 2012, NationalReview, April 3, 2014]</ref>

*Article on if illegal immigrants in detention centers<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigrants-free-leave-detention/
2019 Are Migrants ‘Free to Leave Detention Centers Any Time’?, Snopes.com]</ref> can "leave at any time" says it is "mostly false" because they cannot literally just walk out the door. In fact they can leave by signing deportation papers and will be put on the next available flight to their home country with airline ticket provided at US taxpayer expense.<ref>[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/25/i-was-ready-sign-deportation-papers-says-us-citizen-after-three-weeks-horrific I Was Ready to Sign' Deportation Papers, Says US Citizen After Three Weeks in Horrific Immigrant Detention Center, Common Dreams, July 25, 2018]</ref>

*On a meme which stated that Democrats tried to impeach every Republican president since [[Eisenhower]], Snopes admitted that articles of impeachment were introduced against five of the six Republican presidents who served since Eisenhower, yet rated the meme as "Mostly False".<ref>[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/ Have Democrats Tried to Impeach Every GOP President Since Ike?]</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.snopes.com/ Urban Legends Reference Pages]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{communism}}
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
[[Category:Fake News]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Marjorie Taylor Greene

2022-03-06T14:14:33Z

LucasRoberts2: Update statistic

{{Officeholder
|name=Marjorie Taylor Greene
|image=Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Perry Greene
|religion=[[Evangelical Christian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Georgia
|district=14th
|terms=January 3, 2021 – present
|preceded=[[Tom Graves]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
:''Majorie Taylor Greene was [[Conservative of the Year 2021|Conservative of the Year]] in 2021.
'''Marjorie Taylor Greene''', or '''MTG''', (born May 27, 1974) is an anti-establishment [[conservative]] [[Republican]] congresswoman for the state of [[Georgia]] in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]]. She is a staunch supporter of the [[Second Amendment]] and a principled opponent of [[infanticide]] and [[abortion]]; she opposes [[Democrat]]-sponsored terrorism such as [[Antifa]] and [[BLM]]. She has an immense following in [[Georgia]] and nationwide, and is prolific with her daily postings on [[Telegram]]. She has virtually singlehandedly neutralized the [[Leftist]] agenda of [[Nancy Pelosi]] and [[The Squad]] in the [[House of Representatives]]. Rep. Greene has also led the criticism of the "[[DC Gulag]]," a term she coined, and its biased [[Opposition to Donald Trump|Anti-Trump]] warden. Rep. Greene leads in opposing [[liberal censorship]] on [[social media]].

Rep. Greene is an outspoken supporter of [[Donald Trump]], both when he was president and during the sham [[impeachment and removal|impeachment]] attempt against him in early 2021.

Not long after assuming office, Greene was stripped of her committee assignments by Democrats and [[RINO]]s in the House of Representatives over her exercising of the first amendment on social media. [[Uniparty]] [[Globalist]] [[Mitch McConnell]] smeared her as a "cancer for the Republican Party and our country."<ref>Two references:
*Villarreal, Daniel (February 1, 2021). [https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-comes-out-against-marjorie-taylor-greene-removal-efforts-underway-1565974 Mitch McConnell Comes Out Against Marjorie Taylor Greene With Removal Efforts Underway]. ''Newsweek''. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
*Thop, Frank; Helsel, Phil (February 1, 2021). [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cancer-republican-party-mcconnell-condemns-loony-lies-swipe-marjorie-taylor-n1256429 'Cancer for the Republican Party': McConnell condemns 'loony lies' in swipe at Marjorie Taylor Greene]. ''NBC News''. Retrieved February 1, 2021.</ref> In turn, the representative responded on [[Twitter]] (before it suspended her account):<ref>[https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1356403160751943680 Marjorie Taylor Greene us on Twitter: "The real cancer..."]. ''Twitter''. Retrieved February 1, 2021.</ref>
{{cquote|The real cancer for the Republican Party is weak Republicans who only know how to lose gracefully.

This is why we are losing our country.}}

Rep. Greene's approval rating rose among Republican voters after her committee assignments were removed,<ref>Jenkins, Cameron (February 10, 2021). [https://thehill.com/homenews/news/538228-greenes-popularity-among-republicans-rises-since-vote-to-strip-her-of-committee Greene's popularity among Republicans rises since vote to strip her of committee assignments]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved February 10, 2021.</ref> further indicating an increasing trend among the GOP base towards strong anti-establishment candidates.

Rep. Greene is entertaining on the [[Telegram]] platform, where she has more than 160,000 subscribers as of March 2022.

==Congressional Record==
Rep. Greene was among Republicans who [[Objectors to Biden Electors|challenged the legitimacy]] of the [[2020 Presidential election]] due to widespread [[Biden Putsch|electoral fraud]] and on her first day in 117th Congress she courageously wore a "Trump Won" [[Chinese Virus]] face mask.<ref>[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/marjorie-taylor-green-congress-qanon-1119742/ Is Marjorie Taylor Greene Becoming the New Face of QAnon?]. ''Rolling Stone''.</ref> <ref>[https://thehill.com/homenews/532534-rep-elect-marjorie-taylor-greene-wears-trump-won-mask-on-house-floor Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wears 'Trump won' mask on House floor]. ''The Hill''.</ref> She has been a victim of [[liberal censorship]] and had her [[Twitter]] account suspended for her conservative views.<ref>[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/twitter-temporarily-suspends-gop-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-n1254557 Twitter suspends GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene]. ''NBC News''.</ref>

In January 2021, she introduced articles of [[impeachment]] against acting [[Biden junta|junta]] leader [[Joe Biden]].<ref>[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/535317-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-biden Rep. Marjorie Greene files articles of impeachment against Biden]. ''The Hill''.</ref> However, impeachment cannot be achieved, as the [[Democrat Party]] has control over the House of Representatives. She has occasionally stood up to Speaker of the [[United States House of Representatives]] [[Nancy Pelosi]]. The following months, she introduced more articles of impeachment against Joe Biden, including leaving behind thousands of Americans in Afghanistan <ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/598/text</ref>, endangering national security by ripping the Southern Border wide open <ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/597/text</ref>, and for usurping Congress on the COVID-19 eviction moratorium <ref>https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/596/text</ref>.

==External links==
* [https://greene.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[https://rumble.com/vs3mrm-marjorie-greene-and-matt-gaetz-bombshell-january-6th-press-conference-5819.html MARJORIE GREENE & MATT GAETZ BOMBSHELL JANUARY 6TH PRESS CONFERENCE]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Greene, Marjorie Taylor}}
[[Category:Georgia]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Patriots]]
[[Category:America First Representatives]]
[[Category:America First Agenda]]
[[Category:Nationalists]]
[[Category:Victims of Cancel Culture]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Anti-establishment]]
[[Category:117th United States Congress]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservative Women]]
{{conservatism}}
[[Category:Republican Anti-establishment]]
[[Category:Non-Interventionist Republicans]]
[[Category:Pro First Amendment]]
[[Category:Evangelicals]]
[[Category:Opponents of political correctness]]
[[Category:Pro-Life]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]

Earth

2022-03-06T14:11:34Z

LucasRoberts2: slight clarification; argon makes up a significant percentage of 'other' gases

{{Planet|image=Blue Marble.jpg
|symbol=Earth symbol.svg
|order=3
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=147,090,000 km (0.983 AU)<ref name=earthfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html Earth Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 2, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=152,100,000 km (1.017 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|semimajor=149,597,886.5 km (1.00000011 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|bode=1.0 AU
|eccentricity=0.01671022<ref name=earthfact/>
|sidereal=365.256366 da<ref name=earthfact/>
|synodic=365.256366 da
|orbitspeed=29.783 km/s<ref name=earthfact/>
|inclination=0°
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=23.9345 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|solarday=24 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|rotatespeed=465.11 m/s
|axialtilt=23.439281°
|mass=5.9736 * 1024 kg<ref name=earthfact/>
|density=5,515.3 kg/m³<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacegrav=9.780327 m/s²
|escapespeed=11.186 km/s
|meanradius=6371 km<ref name=earthfact/><ref>http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earth.htm</ref>
|equatorradius =6378.135 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|polarradius =6356.750 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacearea=510,065,600 km²
|landarea=148,939,100 km²
|waterarea=361,126,400 km²
|mintemp=185 K
|meantemp=287 K
|maxtemp=331 K
|moons=1
|composition=Rock
|albedo=0.37<ref name=earthfact/>
|mfd=0.3076 G<ref name=earthfact/>
|pmdm=7.98 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|cmdm=1.41 * 1024 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|mdt=2049 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=1420 a<ref name=calc/>
}}
The '''Earth''' is the third planet in the [[Solar System]]. It is the largest of the terrestrial planets<ref>"Terrestrial planets are planets made up of rocks or metals with a hard surface — making them different from other planets that lack a solid surface. Terrestrial planets also have a molten heavy metal core, few moons, and landforms such as cliffs, valleys, volcanoes and craters." [https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/TBI_terrestrial_planets.pdf] Four such planets exist in our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.</ref> and is the only known [[planet]] which has [[life]] as we know it. The surface of the planet is approximately two-thirds covered in [[water]]. The atmosphere is roughly 78% [[nitrogen]], 21% [[oxygen]] and 0.9% [[argon]] with the remaining 0.1% being made of water vapor, [[carbon dioxide]], and other elements. Some Biblical scholars have calculated that the earth is around 6000 years old, using the genealogical information provided in Genesis. Some biblically illiterate scientists, however, disagree with this method of calculation.<ref>[https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf Steven Ball, Ph., "A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”.]</ref> (See also: [[Age of the Earth]]).
*[https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]
*[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young earth]
*[https://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A]
*[https://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers Creation Compromises]

==Physical Description==

Within the [[Solar System]], Earth is the third planet from the [[Sun]]. It is approximately 8,000 miles (13,000 km) in diameter; its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).<ref>http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm</ref> The reason its metric circumference is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the [[kilometer]] was defined (by the French) as 1/10,000th the distance from the [[Equator]] to the [[North Pole]].

Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water", as the larger part of it—about 70%—is covered by water. In fact, the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] and [[Indian Ocean|Indian]] oceans alone cover about half of the Earth's surface.

The Earth orbits at an [[Astronomical unit|average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun]] in an almost circular orbit. The plane of this orbit, or '''ecliptic''', is the common reference plane for the inclinations of the orbits of all [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s in the [[Solar System]], though in fact Earth's orbit is inclined 7.25° to the plane of the [[Sun]]'s equator. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the Earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life as we know it would be impossible.

==Origin==
People disagree about when and how the Earth was created. The three most popular ideas are:
#That [[God]] created the Earth several hundred generations ago, as recounted in [[Genesis]]. By adding years and other time indications in the [[Old Testament]] chronologies, one can calculate the [[age of the Earth]] as approximately 6,000 years (see [[Date of creation]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).
#That God created the Earth billions of years ago (see [[Old Earth Creationism]] and [[Theistic Evolution]]).
#That the Earth came into existence billions of years ago (approximately 4.5 billion years in modern estimates), entirely through natural processes and without any intervention by God.

Clashes between adherents of these ideas have gone on since time immemorial (see [[origins debate]]), though the last theory has only matured in the last 200 years.

== Young Earth Creationist view ==

===Formation and Age===

Young Earth creationists believe, on the basis of the biblical account in Genesis and biblical geochronologies, that the entire Earth, including animal, plant, and human life, was formed in six days, around 4000 B.C.
Mainstream scientific journals, committed to a [[naturalism|naturalistic]] worldview, contend this view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2</ref><ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4</ref>

Most scientists believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of having been created by a supernatural entity. However, as one scientist noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

=== Magnetosphere ===
Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to prevent most of the Sun's radiation from reaching the Earth and harming the life on it. This field has been decaying at a known exponential rate, as decades of recordkeeping reveal. In 1984, Dr. Russell Humphreys developed a model for the creation of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/> that suggests that the Earth was at first made entirely of water,<ref>See {{Bible ref|book=II_Peter|chap=3|verses=5}}</ref> much of which God transmuted into other elements after He made the Earth, probably on the third day of Creation. Humphreys's predicted magnetic decay time for the Earth agrees well with published data and thus constitutes further evidence for a young Earth.

===Shape of the Earth===

Some people dispute the shape of the Earth, arguing that the Bible describes the Earth as flat (presumably square, given that it is described as having "four corners" (Revelations 7:1) ) rather than spherical. However, no credible organization has ever expressed support for this theory.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm</ref> Some have disputed the idea that the Earth rotates around the Sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

In [[Book of Revelations|Revelations]] 7:1 it is stated: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth".
A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. This is often accepted to be a figure of speech.

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." ([[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 4:8). Apologist [[JP Holding]]'s suggests this may have been a vision.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#globe</ref>

==Christianity and the Earth==

===Christian Historical-Grammatical Bible Exegesis or Bible Literalism===

According to [[Creation Ministries International]], most young earth creationists use a [[Hermeneutics|hermeneutic]] "best described as the [[Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic)|historical-grammatical method]] in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref> Creation Ministries International further states that "Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/</ref>

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue.<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not ''[[a priori]]'' biased in favor of creationism.<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Many [[Christian]]s believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence.<ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Secular scientists, however, reject this reasoning using the anthropic principle.<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref>

===Christian Non-Literalism===

Many mainstream Christian denominations believe the story of Genesis is not meant to be read literally, and believe that the age of the Earth is on the order of millions or billions of years, not thousands of years.<ref>http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/2000n/evolution_and_religion.htm</ref>

===Scientific Uniformitarianism===

Uniformitarian scientists believe that the earth is beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> They also refute that the Earth is only 6,000 years old by quoting older human societies dated by their dating method as older than that.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

== Naturalistic view ==

Estimates by uniformitarian geologists of the age of the Earth and the beginning of life give about 4.55 billion years and 3.5 billion years ago respectively. These estimates are primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites and fossil specimens. Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past.<ref name=nebula>"[http://science.jrank.org/pages/6265/Solar-System-solar-nebula-hypothesis.html The Solar Nebula Hypothesis]." ''The Science Encyclopedia''. Accessed May 6, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Environmental trends]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm The Earth]
*[http://www.noaa.gov/ NOAA] An agency that enriches life through science.
*[http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geography/glossary/ Glossary]
*[https://creation.com/earth-is-too-special Earth is ‘too special’?] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://whatsinside.earth/ What’s Inside Earth?] Paradigm Shift: Geologists prove Earth rings like a bell when earthquakes strike it! — How in the world did Earth come to be like this? What's it like deep inside? Huge implications for comprehending Earth's origins, if not entire universe.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Soil]]

Earth

2022-03-04T16:45:30Z

LucasRoberts2: remove unnecessary ref rag

{{Planet|image=Blue Marble.jpg
|symbol=Earth symbol.svg
|order=3
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=147,090,000 km (0.983 AU)<ref name=earthfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html Earth Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 2, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=152,100,000 km (1.017 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|semimajor=149,597,886.5 km (1.00000011 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|bode=1.0 AU
|eccentricity=0.01671022<ref name=earthfact/>
|sidereal=365.256366 da<ref name=earthfact/>
|synodic=365.256366 da
|orbitspeed=29.783 km/s<ref name=earthfact/>
|inclination=0°
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=23.9345 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|solarday=24 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|rotatespeed=465.11 m/s
|axialtilt=23.439281°
|mass=5.9736 * 1024 kg<ref name=earthfact/>
|density=5,515.3 kg/m³<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacegrav=9.780327 m/s²
|escapespeed=11.186 km/s
|meanradius=6371 km<ref name=earthfact/><ref>http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earth.htm</ref>
|equatorradius =6378.135 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|polarradius =6356.750 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacearea=510,065,600 km²
|landarea=148,939,100 km²
|waterarea=361,126,400 km²
|mintemp=185 K
|meantemp=287 K
|maxtemp=331 K
|moons=1
|composition=Rock
|albedo=0.37<ref name=earthfact/>
|mfd=0.3076 G<ref name=earthfact/>
|pmdm=7.98 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|cmdm=1.41 * 1024 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|mdt=2049 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=1420 a<ref name=calc/>
}}
The '''Earth''' is the third planet in the [[Solar System]]. It is the largest of the terrestrial planets<ref>"Terrestrial planets are planets made up of rocks or metals with a hard surface — making them different from other planets that lack a solid surface. Terrestrial planets also have a molten heavy metal core, few moons, and landforms such as cliffs, valleys, volcanoes and craters." [https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/TBI_terrestrial_planets.pdf] Four such planets exist in our solar system: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.</ref> and is the only known [[planet]] which has [[life]] as we know it. The surface of the planet is approximately two-thirds covered in [[water]]. The atmosphere is roughly 78% [[nitrogen]] and 21% [[oxygen]], with trace amounts of water vapor, [[carbon dioxide]], and other elements. Some Biblical scholars have calculated that the earth is around 6000 years old, using the genealogical information provided in Genesis. Some biblically illiterate scientists, however, disagree with this method of calculation.<ref>[https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf Steven Ball, Ph., "A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of the Earth”.]</ref> (See also: [[Age of the Earth]]).
*[https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]
*[https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young earth]
*[https://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A]
*[https://creation.com/creation-compromises-questions-and-answers Creation Compromises]

==Physical Description==

Within the [[Solar System]], Earth is the third planet from the [[Sun]]. It is approximately 8,000 miles (13,000 km) in diameter; its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).<ref>http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm</ref> The reason its metric circumference is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the [[kilometer]] was defined (by the French) as 1/10,000th the distance from the [[Equator]] to the [[North Pole]].

Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water", as the larger part of it—about 70%—is covered by water. In fact, the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] and [[Indian Ocean|Indian]] oceans alone cover about half of the Earth's surface.

The Earth orbits at an [[Astronomical unit|average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun]] in an almost circular orbit. The plane of this orbit, or '''ecliptic''', is the common reference plane for the inclinations of the orbits of all [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s in the [[Solar System]], though in fact Earth's orbit is inclined 7.25° to the plane of the [[Sun]]'s equator. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the Earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life as we know it would be impossible.

==Origin==
People disagree about when and how the Earth was created. The three most popular ideas are:
#That [[God]] created the Earth several hundred generations ago, as recounted in [[Genesis]]. By adding years and other time indications in the [[Old Testament]] chronologies, one can calculate the [[age of the Earth]] as approximately 6,000 years (see [[Date of creation]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).
#That God created the Earth billions of years ago (see [[Old Earth Creationism]] and [[Theistic Evolution]]).
#That the Earth came into existence billions of years ago (approximately 4.5 billion years in modern estimates), entirely through natural processes and without any intervention by God.

Clashes between adherents of these ideas have gone on since time immemorial (see [[origins debate]]), though the last theory has only matured in the last 200 years.

== Young Earth Creationist view ==

===Formation and Age===

Young Earth creationists believe, on the basis of the biblical account in Genesis and biblical geochronologies, that the entire Earth, including animal, plant, and human life, was formed in six days, around 4000 B.C.
Mainstream scientific journals, committed to a [[naturalism|naturalistic]] worldview, contend this view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2</ref><ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4</ref>

Most scientists believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of having been created by a supernatural entity. However, as one scientist noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

=== Magnetosphere ===
Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to prevent most of the Sun's radiation from reaching the Earth and harming the life on it. This field has been decaying at a known exponential rate, as decades of recordkeeping reveal. In 1984, Dr. Russell Humphreys developed a model for the creation of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/> that suggests that the Earth was at first made entirely of water,<ref>See {{Bible ref|book=II_Peter|chap=3|verses=5}}</ref> much of which God transmuted into other elements after He made the Earth, probably on the third day of Creation. Humphreys's predicted magnetic decay time for the Earth agrees well with published data and thus constitutes further evidence for a young Earth.

===Shape of the Earth===

Some people dispute the shape of the Earth, arguing that the Bible describes the Earth as flat (presumably square, given that it is described as having "four corners" (Revelations 7:1) ) rather than spherical. However, no credible organization has ever expressed support for this theory.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm</ref> Some have disputed the idea that the Earth rotates around the Sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

In [[Book of Revelations|Revelations]] 7:1 it is stated: "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth".
A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. This is often accepted to be a figure of speech.

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." ([[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 4:8). Apologist [[JP Holding]]'s suggests this may have been a vision.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#globe</ref>

==Christianity and the Earth==

===Christian Historical-Grammatical Bible Exegesis or Bible Literalism===

According to [[Creation Ministries International]], most young earth creationists use a [[Hermeneutics|hermeneutic]] "best described as the [[Historical-grammatical method (Literal hermeneutic)|historical-grammatical method]] in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref> Creation Ministries International further states that "Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/</ref>

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue.<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not ''[[a priori]]'' biased in favor of creationism.<ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Many [[Christian]]s believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence.<ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Secular scientists, however, reject this reasoning using the anthropic principle.<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref>

===Christian Non-Literalism===

Many mainstream Christian denominations believe the story of Genesis is not meant to be read literally, and believe that the age of the Earth is on the order of millions or billions of years, not thousands of years.<ref>http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/2000n/evolution_and_religion.htm</ref>

===Scientific Uniformitarianism===

Uniformitarian scientists believe that the earth is beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> They also refute that the Earth is only 6,000 years old by quoting older human societies dated by their dating method as older than that.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

== Naturalistic view ==

Estimates by uniformitarian geologists of the age of the Earth and the beginning of life give about 4.55 billion years and 3.5 billion years ago respectively. These estimates are primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites and fossil specimens. Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past.<ref name=nebula>"[http://science.jrank.org/pages/6265/Solar-System-solar-nebula-hypothesis.html The Solar Nebula Hypothesis]." ''The Science Encyclopedia''. Accessed May 6, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Environmental trends]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm The Earth]
*[http://www.noaa.gov/ NOAA] An agency that enriches life through science.
*[http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geography/glossary/ Glossary]
*[https://creation.com/earth-is-too-special Earth is ‘too special’?] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]
*[http://whatsinside.earth/ What’s Inside Earth?] Paradigm Shift: Geologists prove Earth rings like a bell when earthquakes strike it! — How in the world did Earth come to be like this? What's it like deep inside? Huge implications for comprehending Earth's origins, if not entire universe.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Soil]]

User talk:Northwest

2022-03-04T16:42:20Z

LucasRoberts2: /* help needed */ new section

{{welcome}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:37, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

== same sex marriage revert? ==

Greetings, and hope you are well. Just wanted to ask, why the revert of my same-sex marriage page edit?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)

==Vandal==
A vandal on the loose. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Benkumar] I have told four other editors. If you are able, please block him[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (EST)
:Thank you. When I see an edit of minus five digits on a page like Republican Party, it's pretty obvious that a vandal swept by. Well done. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 22:18, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
::Are you sure that was vandalism? It could have been an inadvertent removal of information when he intended on just adding "pro-capitalism" to the article. I have seen numerous times where this has happened, which an editor adding info but for whatever reason accidently removing a whole bunch of information without even knowing it, and in those other times, it was clearly a mistake. I honestly don't see how it was intentional. I request that you review your block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
:::It turns out that user was a sock of TAR, and he was blocked by an admin (but for a different reason). Thank you for your work on this site, Northwest. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:43, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars. ==

Hi.

I noticed the great job you did in expanding the Worst Liberal TV Shows, and was wondering whether you are planning to do something similar regarding the Greatest Conservative TV Shows and the Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies lists (namely the opening paragraphs).

Also, since I noticed you're doing a lot of edits regarding Star Wars currently, I was wondering whether you could expand it to include any real life influences on the characters and franchise. I know that the Empire was largely inspired by America during the time of the Vietnam War, and that the Rebel Alliance was based on the Vietcong (in fact, that's actually the reason why I'm, albeit reluctantly, an Empire supporter now, and probably full time as well). I included a bit regarding Palpatine being directly inspired by Richard Nixon, for example. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (EDT)

+==
Okay mate, that's enough! If you want to revert my edits then give me reasons that have more veracity than the weasel words you gave in the Summary of one of the pages.
:I have reread the article(s), struggled through TAR's attached blogs, read your [[Northwest]] edit history and have realised you have no real understanding or knowledge of the words involved. Nor do you understand it is not advisable to link to non-existent pages which your reverts always do.
:I am about to revert... again! If you revert me without good reason I will ban you.
:[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 00:59, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== re: Lenin quote in Bourgeoisie article ==

re: [[Bourgeoisie]] article

AlanE is acting in good faith about the Lenin quote: http://www.azcentral.com/story/claythompson/2014/10/13/lenin-ronald-reagan-quotes/17226727/

If you want to discuss the matter of the historicity of the quote with AlanE on the talk page of the article, here is a useful resource: [http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:31, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== re: your note to me ==

I respond to your email from me.

Second, I will write a note to AlanE.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:04, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== Princess and the Frog revert. ==

Just writing because I'm not sure why you reverted the Princess and the Frog removal from Worst Liberal Movies. The movie promoteshard work and family while condemning hedonism and nihilism and p k it's out the danger of accepting handouts and feeling entitled. This seems to me to be a deeply conservative film. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

==Evolution==
A simple question: do you believe in it, Creationism, or otherwise?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

==Account promoted==
Your account has just been given a promotion to 24x7 editing and blocking privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:Congratulations! You do very good work on this wiki, which I appreciate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (EST)
::Congrats! Keep up the good work! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:::Congratulations. It is good working with you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:36, 7 March 2017 (EST)
==JohnZ==
Dear Northwest, I changed your two-year block to 1 day for [[User:JohnZ]]. While I do not like profanity, I think that we should show a kind and understanding approach to users who have been around for years. Let's give him a second chance, and if he does it again, then we would be justified in coming down hard. This is a volunteer project, and CP wants to avoid a reputation of long-blocks-at-the-drop-of-a-hat. Thank you for your understanding. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (EDT)

==I like that==
Replace "religion" with "ideology™. Because of certain legal issues the US will face in the future, I go out of my way never to refer the a certain collective entity as a "faith" or "religion". " Political system" I use a lot, but haven't of thought of "ideology". We should collect a whole basket of different terms that can be used, and always insert them wherever necessary. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 05:10, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking of User:Misslizzynj ==

Please don't block new users due to the name policy unless they have usernames that are obviously offensive or silly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

== Length of blocks ==

Hello Northwest, Andy recently messaged me on my talk page and told me to refrain from using blocks longer than around six months because many people's IP addresses change by then. I see you changed the length of a block for an impersonator of you, and I am not going to challenge that, but please refrain from doing long blocks for non-serious vandalism, per what Andy told me. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

== Trolls ==

Don't feed them. Block them and move on. I would have emailed this to you, but you don't seem to have email activated. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
:Just block trolls. Do not communicate with them.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:22, 27 October 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking of User:Whizkid ==

One comment, as blunt and rude as it may have been, is not enough to block a long-time editor for any amount of time. You should have warned him about making such comments first. Don't ever make such a block again.

While I'm commenting here, you realize that the links [[Democrat Party]] and [[Democratic Party]] link to two different articles? I see that you're changing every link to "Democrat Party" (which I support, for the most part), but you're having every article link to a different article. Please change the links so they link to the actual article about the party, even if you pipe it so the reader sees "Democrat Party." --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)

:It was made clear to me when I was promoted to Assistant SysOp that this role is only for blocking blatant vandals, not working in good faith. While I haven't carefully studied the issue, he was disputing your changes in good faith. As [[Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|officially stated]], only full administrators are to resolve disputes. Just because you have the block button doesn't mean you should use it whenever someone disagrees. In your defense, edit warring is discouraged, but it takes two to edit war. If you are the one making a change, then it is reasonable to assume that the original version should take precedence until the dispute can be resolved. Please discuss it with an administrator rather than just blocking someone. Should he have kept reverting your changes? Probably not. Should you have kept forcing your change back in? Probably not. Please take it to an admin next time, rather than just abusing the block button. Thank you. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (EST)

::First of all, I apologize for being rude. It was a fit of pique, brought on by my feeling you weren't paying any attention to what I was saying. Still, it was inappropriate, and I don't believe you're vandalizing the site, or that you're attempting to be deceitful. So I hope that you can forgive me and we can come to the understanding that, even if we disagree on things, we're both working for what we believe to be the good, and we should treat each other with respect and charity. I hope we can agree on that much at least.

::That being said, I still strongly disagree with your position about this, and don't feel that it's ultimately good for the site, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with you that won't do anything but waste both our time. So maybe we could agree to make our cases before an administrator or someone, for the sake of harmony, and get a decision on this. Let me know what you think.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)

== Liberal Denial revert? ==

Why did you do this? We know that the ultimate goal of liberals is to do more than just censor Christianity in America. A site made for American conservatives should be about politics as much as it is about religion.

[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 16:44, 29 January 2018 (EST)

== Please backup your recent edits ==

Please try to either save a copy of your recent edits, or just refrain from editing for the next 24 hours or so. Conservapedia is changing web servers, and there is a risk that pages might be exported before you make the change, meaning your change will be lost. Thanks for understanding! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

== Islam ==

I saw you reverting my edits to the article on [[Islam]]. There is a belief system to Islam, but it's more about worshiping an ''ideology'' than any God or gods. Even so, the source cited says Islam "…is an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems '''as well as''' a belief system. It is neither one thing nor the other – Islam is unique."

== Marijuana article ==

Did you see that there was a talk page discussion on the marijuana article about the content in question? I recommend that you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Marijuana&curid=7524&diff=1412346&oldid=1412214 your reverting] there and reach an agreement with the other editors, and I strongly recommend that you leave an edit summary when you revert. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
:Same, an edit summary would really be helpful there to clarify your intent. Did you read the Talk page discussion about how those portions of the lede undermine our argument? Please see [[Talk:Marijuana#Objections_to_presentation_of_lead]]. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

== Discussing Christian Denominations on This Site ==

I am someone who believes very staunchly in the five solas. I think that Ephesians 2:8-9 indicates the validity of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, John 14:6 for Solo Christo, and Psalm 115 for Sola Deo Gloria. I am not here to debate religious issues with you, but as you are a high-ranking admin on this site and Catholic, I have to ask you, what would you do if you saw edits to certain articles promoting a Protestant point of view? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (EST)

== My Ban ==

Hi, I was banned for making edits that I thought were accurate on the Political Spectrum page under my account Classical Liberal. I didn't know how to contact you, so I created this page instead so I could. I'm really sorry. I'm a new user who just registered within the same hour of getting banned, I am a conservative, but I prefer that we take our title of being the liberals back, I'm not a troll, and I'm a student who's interested in politics and all I'm trying to do is inform people about modern conservatives so women and minorities aren't deceived anymore and will come back home to the Republican Party. I don't see how my edits were lies or revisionist history. I was just trying to inform people who wrongly accuse us of what the Democrats did like the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation because they always claim whenever you tell them that the Democrats were responsible for all of it that that's when the Democrats were the conservative party because they think that the parties switched and since I learned that the word liberal was redefined in the 1930s, I also thought the word conservative was redefined as well and that classical conservatism meant modern liberalism now just like how classical liberalism means modern conservatism now. I thought that I should've informed people that the conservatives of the past who the modern liberals pin the actions of on us modern conservatives were the modern liberals because the word liberal was hijacked from us and redefined and they like to accredit modern liberals for the things we classical liberals and modern conservatives actually did before the word liberalism was redefined. They'll argue with us conservatives and tell us that Lincoln would be a Democrat since he was a liberal because they don't realize that he was a liberal when the definitions of liberal and conservative were reversed. They believe the parties were reversed instead. I thought that since we were called the liberals in the past before they hijacked and redefined the term for themselves, they were called the conservatives because they're trying to pin the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation on modern conservatives and blame us for it and insist that since Democrats are now called the liberals and Republicans are called the conservatives, that the parties switched rather than the definitions of liberal and conservative. I thought this was the correct explanation since liberals of today whenever you point out the Democrats' history say "that's when the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives and Lincoln would be a Democrat today since the liberal party is the Democratic Party now." They're unaware that when we were the liberal party, that the word liberal did not mean what it does now. I was just trying to clear the confusion that the Democrats created up when they redefined the word liberal and hijacked it from us. I thought that since classical liberalism means what modern conservatism does, classical conservatism must've meant what modern liberalism does now because I thought that since we were called the liberals before the New Deal, that the Democrats must've been called the conservatives then because what else would that have made them if we were called the liberals before the New Deal and conservatives after? If we were called liberals prior to the New Deal, what were they called? Conservatives wanting to keep blacks enslaved and minorities and women oppressed who had a bad reputation and stole our term? And I thought that them stealing the term liberal from us and us having to call ourselves the conservatives instead of liberals which we used to be called was part of their plan to push the party switch myth 30 years later because we have the title of conservative and they have the title of liberal that they stole from us and I thought the Democrats did this to make it look like the parties switched instead of the titles and to make it look like they were the good guys since they're now called "liberals" instead and no longer us which we used to be called until they hijacked the term from us. I thought this was the best way to debunk the claim that modern conservatives of the Republican Party who used to be called liberals prior to the definition switch had anything to do with what the Democrats did in the past. I thought that if being a conservative meant what being a liberal meant before the word was redefined, that being a liberal meant what being a conservative meant because I thought that since the term liberal belonged to us at one time, the term conservative must've belonged to them and that if classical liberalism means modern conservatism, classical conservatism must mean modern liberalism. You see where I'm getting at? I thought that if the word liberal belonged to us at one time, the word conservative belonged to them if we were called the liberals because what is the opposite of liberal? Conservative. And I thought that since the word liberal had a different definition, the word conservative had a different definition too. So I'm sorry if I in your words inserted historical revisionism and lies. That was not my intent. My intent was to clear up confusion, not create it. I want people to stop accrediting modern liberals for what we did and stop claiming that we used to be the Democrats and that the Republicans used to be what Democrats are now which is not true. I'm new to all this and I'm a beginner. I'll probably need some help with editing. I'm still learning my history. History and philosophy and studying the Bible are my favorite things. I'm obsessed with politics. I'm really good at explaining things and I was just trying to help. You could've just let me know where you thought I was wrong instead of slapping a 2-year ban on me. If unbanned, from now on, I will verify with you the things I want to add to pages before I add them so this won't happen again. Please give me another chance. I'm only a guy in his late teens whose been into politics for 7 years now. I share your information with everyone I can and I've convinced many family members to become Republicans while even being disowned by several others which you could just imagine how that makes someone feel. Especially someone my age. {{unsigned|Modern Conservative}}
:I have unblocked the "Classical Liberal" account. I strongly recommend you first go to the article talk pages before making changes like this before unilaterally making them. Then, we can discuss those changes, which will be helpful. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (EST)

== Sissy punk site ==

[[User_talk:DMorris/Archive_1#Sissy_punks|Per Jpatt and the late TK, I would try to avoid mentioning that vandal site at all, fair enough?]] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

The atheist page has straw man arguments and generalisations against atheism like that atheism is a worldview. You cannot just delete and ban everybody that doesn't agree with you. The evolution page is full of inconsistencies too.

== New show ==

Hey, since you seem to be the most active person on the [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_TV_Shows|Greatest Conservative TV Shows]] page I figured you might want to add Preacher to the page. It is about a disgraced preacher coming back to church and trying to find God.

== Please help defend Catholicism from the baiters! ==

Hi Northwest, if you have the time, can you please look out for the Catholic-baiters on this site (RobSmith, Conservative, VargasMilan, and Shobson20) and rebuke them if need be? They have [[User talk:NishantXavier|harshly attacked NishantXavier on his talk page]], and it's evident that they spread lies, smears, baiting rhetoric, and mischaracterizations to "prove" their points, which are often times fallacious. Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 15:03, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:Don't listen to him, he has as much of a victim complex as BLM supporters. Actually, the most mature thing you can do is not get involved in this argument like you have all along. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

::Wait, I have the victim mentality in the same manner of BLM idiots? Need I remind you, Shobson20, for the gazillionth time that ''you'' were the one whining immediately after NishantXavier was promoted and you weren't yet? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 16:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Deflection. You've done plenty of whining yourself and STILL doing it. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:33, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::You're the one who's posting on other people's talk pages trying to get them involved, not us. First you tried to get Karajou, now Northwest. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm really sorry this guy is trying to drag you into his fight. If you want to, you can contribute [[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?| this debate page]]. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:01, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

The truth is that a Catholic vs. Protestant argument was getting out of hand, so User:Conservative suggested making that debate page to make the debate more structured and civil. Since then, both sides have been mostly talking there, but Liberaltears just can't let things go. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

== Great to see you around again! ==

Great to see you back, Northwest! How are you doing? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 00:26, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

==Check this out==
[https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/murder-for-ratings/ Murder for Ratings]. I'm fairly certain I put the assault by Jacob Lebron Kelly at a Sanders rally in the February 2020 list of violence. I'm checking it now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:27, 13 October 2020 (EDT)

Here it is https://www.conservapedia.com/Left-wing_violence_in_the_Trump_era_(2020)#cite_note-49 and footnote 50

== Juvenile Delinquent ==

What can we do, if the Juvenile Delinquent comes after us? He came after me again. --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (EST)

== A note about that troll ==

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the troll whose socks you were quick to block was probably trying to make a fool out of you and CP in general. Since the imbecile thought that you would immediately block him upon sight, he trolls you with usernames like [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ALightningBlocks&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= this] to prove he's correct in a sense and make us look paranoid. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 22:50, 31 December 2020 (EST)

== Please help formulate the Mission Statement ==

I need input on [[Conservapedia:Mission Statement]]. Please contribute. I want Conservapedia to leave Wikipedia in its dust.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (EST)

==Chimpout==
Good catch on User:Chimpout. [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Chimpout] I never would have caught it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 03:25, 30 January 2021 (EST)
:Just doing what needs to be done. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 03:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)

== Debate ==

:Hi Northwest. I would like to get your input on a debate page I just created [[Debate:Should the United States attack Pakistan?]]. Thanks.[[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2021 (EST)

+
==Proposal==
We would appreciate your input at [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:59, 1 February 2021 (EST)
:You have no real interest in "civil" discussion, only to be disruptive, to act in an uncivil manner and to hide comments I make specifically calling you out for your behavior here in the past four days because you don't like what I have to say. Karajou's even had to undo what you're trying to do, but your reversals of his undos show that you're just not interested in doing the right thing and would rather seize power here and do exactly what Pokeria1 pointed out you're trying to do - take Conservapedia in a more leftward direction, which is not what this site is about. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (EST)
== Thanks ==
Thanks for the tremendous blocking last night on the avalanche of vandal accounts. Today I've written and installed a program to minimize that from occurring again. Really appreciate your blocks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (EST)

== re: RobS ==

Later in this week, I will be attempting to mediate the dispute involving RobS as RobS creates a lot of content.

In the meantime and in the future, please do not provoke RobS. I cannot stress this enough.

Also, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (EST)
:Who was this topic made by? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 04:31, 9 February 2021 (EST)

== Re: your editing warring with RobS about Obama's birthplace ==

Northwest, you wrote about Obama: "because of him not being a natural-born citizen".

At Conservapedia, you cannot '''definitively state''' that Obama was not a natural born citizen because there is no definitive/absolute/direct proof to that effect. The best you can do is point out that certain sources/people suspect that Obama was not a natural born citizen for X, Y, Z, etc. reasons. If you are definitively insisting that Obama was not a natural born citizen in articles, please stop. In many cases, historical claims are probabilistic. This is one of those cases.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)

== Why are you and rob fighting ==

Why. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 01:03, 20 February 2021 (EST)

== RobS' talk page. It's his castle ==

Please stop endeavoring to retain your postings on RobS' user talk page.

As per Mr. Schlafly, "We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like government or public property, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users."[https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia] Source: [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:25, 21 February 2021 (EST)
:Also, "Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages."[https://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines] Source: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (EST)

== There’s no RationalWiki article yet. ==

Why is that? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 07:42, 2 March 2021 (EST)
:Basically denying the site traffic. Probably for the best. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (EST)
::Multiple admins there are ruining what was already a bad site and made it even worse --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 08:23, 2 March 2021 (EST)

== Don't take content disputes to user talk pages. It unnecessarily inflames matters. Keep things on the article talk pages ==

You immediately took a content dispute to a user's personal talk page.

You shouldn't immediately take content disputes to a user's talk page. It unnecessarily inflames matters. Keep things on the article talk pages and endeavor to have a cordial, constructive dialogue with the person to resolve matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 04:09, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

=== Re: Don't take content disputes to user talk pages ===
Unfortunately, that was easier said than done when RobS chose ''not'' to be cordial or constructive (as per his history) with me or other editors during the kerfuffle back in January that led to his being desysopped and stripped of his admin powers. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
:For all parties involved, I suggest practicing forgiveness and trying to start things over with a new slate.

:I have been talking to Andy about this matter and he wants greater civility and constructive dialogue by all parties involved.

:This coming weekend, I will be talking to Andy about upgrading Conservapedia's civility guidelines.

:In addition, I will be talking to Andy about Conservapedia articles/content having an more encyclopedic tone. Why? Because Andy raised this issue with me and would like to see Conservapedia have a more encyclopedic tone in all cases where it is important to do so (I will explain this matter). Encyclopedia articles should first and foremost be designed to inform and shouldn't go out of their way to troll. For example, as far as a an article dispute you had with RobS, you insisted that the word "transgender" be struck out and "gender confusion" be used instead because you said that liberals don't like the phrase "gender confusion". But the purpose of articles is not to tick off liberals, but to inform the public. From what I understand, the topic had to do with transgenderism so when you insisted that "gender confusion" be used it unnecessarily clouded the meaning of the article as that is a broader term. Even when I write on provocative topics like [[Gay bowel syndrome]], [[Homosexuality and Parasites|Homosexuality and parasites]], [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]], I make every effort to keep the articles encyclopedic in tone. I am also not a fan of RobS using "Biden junta" for article titles or article content. The term "Biden junta" is fine for essays, but not articles in my estimation. Andy wants main page right content to have a more encyclopedic tone too. I plan on talking to RobS about this matter this coming weekend and to talk to Andy about this matter too. In short, if you want content to have a very provocative tone, that is fine, but do it in essays.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:10, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::I upgraded the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Conservapedia guidelines]] as far as the civility portion. I will be talking to Andy this week to get it approved.

::This is my addition: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unneccesary content disputes by sourcing your article content."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

:::Well, what I actually stated in my edit summaries was that since this is a conservative wiki, use of liberal-preferred terms should be avoided except in certain contexts (such as in quotes made by public figures, or names of liberal organizations). If liberals don't like their preferred terms not being used, that's their issue, but giving in on that subject is essentially a matter of "give them an inch..." (or to be more specific, give liberals an inch and they'll eventually demand the distance between Earth and Pluto, as they always do). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

::::The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in Google searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 07:04, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

:::::Really? You're using Google searches for viability? Newsflash, Google manipulates search results. We even have an entire article on the subject on here. Even if we kowtow to Liberal redefining of things, Google STILL will end up manipulating search results to block us out. Better be a pure conservative site than sacrifice even a small amount of conservativism under the belief it would give us more traffic. If anything, you should go by DuckDuckGo or even Bing. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:14, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

::::::You are correct. Here's my revised statement: "The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in <s>Google</s> searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text." I removed the offensive proper noun. That should be helpful now, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:17, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
Andy approved my addition to the civility portion of the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Conservapedia guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:32, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::This is the update I created: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:35, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

== Re: latest edit war with RobS ==

As far as your latest edit war with RobS, If you are going to source material, please do better than Quora or sites like it such as Yahoo Answers. Anyone can put material on sites like that. The fourth footnote for the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia Commandments]] indicates, "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed."

Quora is not an authoritative work.

Under the new civility rules update that Andy approved, it does state you have to properly source material.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:01, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== Friendly invite to a new Conservapedia project ==

Hello Northwest! I hope you are having a good day. I wanted to invite you to [[Conservapedia:Project Current Events]] since it is a new project that I recently started. The goal of the project is to improve Conservapedia within current events, Hopefully you will consider joining. --[[User:Elijahandskip|Elijahandskip]] ([[User talk:Elijahandskip|talk]]) 12:36, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== RobS and Northwest content disputes involving historical matters ==

I see a lot of disputes between RobS and NorthWest involving historical disputes. Below I give some great rules of weighing historical evidence.

=== Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography ===

*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

==== Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography ====

Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from [[Josh McDowell]]'s book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."

(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."

Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)

=== Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations ===

*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:11, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== re: your edit to the European migrant crisis article ==

Please look at this edit of yours: https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=European_migrant_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1309224 which you posted in 2017.

1990sguy and RobS spent countless hours on the article.

I want to focus on one aspect of your edit to that article. In 2017, after Barack Obama served 8 years as the president of the USA, your edit indicated the following and I will quote it : "When Barack Hussein Obama became "president"". Norwest, when you posted "president", with no explanation, its obvious your intent was to merely "stick it to the libs" and not to educate the public. The purpose of an encylopedia is to inform the public and not merely to upset people who hold to a certain political ideology.

Now in an article devoted to specific topic of [[Barack Hussein Obama]] one can certainly briefly go over the pro/con arguments of Obama's actual birthplace (like the various arguments of computer experts on Obama's online long form birth certificate giving the pro-con arguments of the various computer experts opinions on its authenticity). In addition, in that main Obama arrticle one can have a link to a longer article specifically geared to the issue of Obama's birthplace controversy.

But an article which merely refers to "President" Obama for example is potentially confusing to the reader as he/she may not know what it means. For example, a young person in India who reads "President" Obama could easily be confused on why the quotation marks are there.

One the reasons why I shared Fischer's rules above is to point out that historical investigations/conclusions are often probabilistic. A historian looking into the birthplace of Obama would carefully weigh all the evidence and after doing so would not make dogmatic statements like "Obama was definitely not born in the USA" because he would actually have no absolute certainty. For example, I know that one Republican computer expert said the online rendition of Barack Obama's birth certification document was a bona fide copy of Obama's birth certificate. Some computer experts on the other hand say the online, long form birth certificate was a fraud.

If you stick the facts in articles and not needlessly inject opinions that claim to be facts, you will have more harmony with other editors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

==Re: Trump Reverts==
Thanks for leaving a message. You bring up a very good point about whether Joe Biden should even legally be in power, because of how greatly distrusted last year's election was. But it also raises the question of, if Joe Biden is not the legal president, then who is? It can't be Donald Trump, because he failed to win Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona (which had no voting law changes and the suburbs and working-class voters there were almost certainly going to hand the state to Joe Biden), so massive voter fraud in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which was declined by a leftist agenda of the courts in those locations, would not have been able to change the election. Plus, courts with a political agenda are nothing new either. Bush v. Gore, for example, only favored Bush because of a rightist agenda of the court. So even if there was massive voter fraud in the 2020 election like we suspect, don't courts and local election officials serve the bottom line for presidential legitimacy? Not only do I find it very unlikely that Republican officials wish to promote a big-government leftist agenda, but the reason I say all this is because even if Joe Biden didn't receive as many votes as it seemed in 2020, he may still be a legal president. Even if it is the fault of the people who ran the election, the Biden administration may not be the one to blame. - [[User:TrumpLover84|TrumpLover84]]([[User talk:TrumpLover84|talk]])

==Vandal patrol==
While on vandal patrol, you missed the most obvious. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stacey_Abrams&curid=152713&diff=1741677&oldid=1717133 This edit] claims Stacey Abrams is a bizarre conspiracy theorist cause she accused brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger of election rigging with voting machines before Sidney Powell or Donald Trump did.

== Question ==

Do I use infobox officeholder or dictator bio for this person https://conservapedia.com/Albert_René as he was accused of using torture against people. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk!]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Guidelines==
[[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states:
*''Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However '''you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users''', and their opinions.''
You Userpage mainspace presently has an attack upon another CP editor placed by you. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Northwest&curid=123230&diff=1753219&oldid=1752798] Please remove the abusive content. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:58, 10 May 2021 (EDT)
:If you ask me, the only one actually coming across as a bully is you, Rob. And quite frankly, I have to agree with Northwest, your actions are coming across as unjust, and more likely to aid the liberal agenda as it is. We formed Conservapedia specifically to get AWAY from the liberal bias that is Wikipedia. We cannot allow ourselves to become Wikipedia-lite. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (EDT)

==John Wayne==
Why don't you go fix the [[John Wayne]] article and change it to [[Marion Wayne]]? [https://turtledove.fandom.com/wiki/John_Wayne] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:04, 21 May 2021 (EDT)
:And how was my edit summary regarding the Bruce Jenner article a "snide comment" (which you yourself are guilty of leaving in other past edits of yours[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730163][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730429]), even though it was not - it simply stated the truth, which you then proceeded to hide (and in so doing, makes you look guilty of covering up that truth) by hiding that summary and by protecting the [[Bruce Jenner]] redirect[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bruce_Jenner&action=history] to prevent a move back to what the article should be - which, in your doing, makes it look like you're trying to coddle, enable and encourage a mental disorder instead of treating it as what it is.[https://fwipetitions.org/fwi/16-facts-on-gender-confusion/]

:And, oh yeah - [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility|civility]], remember? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:43, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

Don't worry. You don't have edit war with [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Northwest&diff=next&oldid=1758240 the guy harassing you.] I reverted to [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&curid=24281&action=history your version] and locked the page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:55, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

==Unjustified block==
The blockee here was not "lying". [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Rozovoevino] [https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/05/21/house-candidate-says-he-impregnated-14-year-old-when-he-was-18/] He should have been asked for a citation and more context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:55, 22 May 2021 (EDT)

== Earlier I had View source message and couldn't edit? ==

Does Conservapedia ever lock its editing at night to only trusted contributors? I couldn't edit earlier & the edit tab was displayed as "View source". [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 09:23, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
:Got it, that's what I thought. Good idea for you guys to do that. By the way, have I been doing good thus far? I've noticed that you've been adding some articles as well, such as episodes on [[Popeye the Sailor]]. Has Conservapedia expanded its scope in recent times (especially because liberalism is slowly corrupting more and more things). [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 11:01, 26 May 2021 (EDT)

==Discussion==
Why does a 90 minute discussion warrant a 48 hour block? [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&action=history] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:28, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

:Well, let's run down the highlights:

:*I originally told Astaka that Wikipedia [[Wikipedia#Unreliability of Wikipedia|was not a credible source]][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794054&oldid=1794053] when he used a Wikipedia article as his source when he was arguing about the history of writing;
:*Astaka then proceeded (as Andy later explained when he replied[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794150&oldid=1794137]) to argue in circles and tried to have it both ways in his argument (see the text) after I pointed out to him that two sources that he supplied, which he hoped to use to bolster Wikipedia's claims, actually discredited them;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794060&oldid=1794059]
:*I warned him about his behavior[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1794095] after he started getting abusive[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794094&oldid=1794092] because he didn't like my pointing out that he discredited his own arguments with his own sources;
:*After his arguments got shot down at Andy's talk page, I offered Astaka an easy out to cut his losses and walk away from the argument,[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794086&oldid=1794085][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794095&oldid=1794094] but he refused to take it and insisted on continuing to argue;
:*At the [[Ivermectin]] talk page, Astaka denied the effectiveness of that medication using a biased website as his "source", then he started arguing after I countered his claim by posting how Joe Rogan cured his case of the CCP flu using Ivermectin;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794064&oldid=1794061]
:*After I shot down all of his arguments there (finishing by pointing out how his source would have reason to lie about Ivermectin[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794089&oldid=1794087]), he descended to trolling[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794103&oldid=1794101] - and that's what earned him the block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:03, September 3, 2021 (EDT)
:: Okay, good. You issued a warning first. We are trying to foster a friendlier editing environment less dependent on arbitrary blocking. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 05:28, September 4, 2021 (EDT)

== Are you also called Northwest on Wikipedia, or is that someone else? ==

[[User:ChenXiansheng|ChenXiansheng]] ([[User talk:ChenXiansheng|talk]]) 12:06, September 8, 2021 (EDT)

== Reason I blanked my old user page ==

Hi Northwest, I should be allowed to blank my old user talk page, as I don't want my future employer to know that I was on a site like this. Thanks for your understanding! [[User:ChenXiansheng|ChenXiansheng]] ([[User talk:ChenXiansheng|talk]]) 19:32, October 29, 2021 (EDT)

==Please don't bite the newbies==
[https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Pino-Basher] There was nothing objectionable that I could see in this lone contrib. Let's let the newbies who aren't trolling get comfortable and adjust before removing their work. Offering a helping hand or suggestions is more effective at retaining editors. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 22:47, December 12, 2021 (EST)

:as to User:Hokkainado, the inscription wasn't Japanese, it was Chinese. Even at that, the behavior does not necessarily require getting hit with the maximum for a first-time offense. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 20:23, December 20, 2021 (EST)

::psst, take a hint: we don't block for "lying" anymore. [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sisko] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]] 03:37, December 29, 2021 (EST)

==Sports and such==
I would personally like to thank you, Northwest, for helping keep the [[Kansas City Chiefs]] page (and template) up to date. If you need anything at all, please let me know if you need anything.
[[User:Man O Wisdom]][[User talk:Man O Wisdom|Remember the Alamo!]] 01:22, December 31st, 2021 (CST)

== help needed ==

Hi, wondering why I got blocked. All I wanted to do was help build this wiki. I can't email you so I made a new account if thats okay. Thanks!