Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Most Influential Persons

2007-10-30T03:18:58Z

ObiBinks:

Is this a page where we may submit our own list?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:32, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Julius or Augustus ==
Also I feel obliged to correct as an amateur historian, the idea that Julius Caesar was so influential. He actually was not that big of a deal. Perhaps he felled the Republic as it was, but its fate was hardly determined, or settled, by his actions. The work of creating real change from the Republic to the Empire was that of Augustus. Perhaps Julius started the process, but the real work was my personal hero, Augustus.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 00:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
==Thomas Jefferson==
yeah.... Jefferson was the second president of the US.... just saying =/ [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 23:18, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Politics

2007-10-30T02:16:20Z

ObiBinks:

===Politics===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|patriot}}
|-
|{{UB|Bushfan}}
|-
|{{UB|Reagan}}
|-
|{{UB|ronny}}
|-
|{{UB|progun}}
|-
|{{UB|antigun}}
|-
|{{UB|guncontrol}}
|-
|{{UB|GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
|-
|{{UB|Gunlawdarfur}}
|-
|{{UB|guns illegal}}
|-
|{{UB|ClintonFan}}
|-
|{{UB|Arkansas Leg-Hound}}
|-
|{{UB|Clintonlied}}
|-
|{{UB|Clinton}}
|-
|{{UB|not Regan}}
|-
|{{UB|Political Compass|x|y}}
|-
|((UB|political compass|x|y))
|-
|{{UB|patriot questions authority}}
|-
|{{UB|guns harm}}
|-
|{{UB|free speech}}
|-
|{{UB|gay is ok}}
|-
|{{UB|Liberal}}
|}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-30T00:57:01Z

ObiBinks:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[Image:PolCompass.gif|45px]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-29T23:59:13Z

ObiBinks:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[Image:Political compass small logo.gif|45px]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-29T23:58:27Z

ObiBinks:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/minicomALL.gif|45px]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-29T23:56:09Z

ObiBinks:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[Image:Political compass small logo.gif|45px]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-29T23:53:08Z

ObiBinks:

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/minicomALL.gif]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Template:User political compass

2007-10-29T23:43:40Z

ObiBinks: New page:  {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px na...

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#00f |id-p=0px |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#8bf |info-s=9 |info-fc=#000 |id=  <div style="position: relative; border-right: solid 1px navy;">  <div style="position: absolute;  left: {{#expr:19 + 2.5*{{{1|0}}}}}px; top: {{#expr:11 - 2.5*{{{2|0}}}}}px;  ">•</div>  [[Image:Political compass small logo.gif|45px]]</div>  |info=This user's [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Political Compass] coordinates are {{{1}}},{{{2}}}.}}

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2007-10-28T23:44:35Z

ObiBinks: just added something about the Mountain Meadows Massacre

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite]]</sup> 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</sup> 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] <sup>[[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]])</sup> 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<small>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</small> 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:John Edwards

2007-10-28T21:13:46Z

ObiBinks: Asked for a citation

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

== Political Views ==

Can we cite articles proving that malpractice suits by trial lawyers is the reason that the Health Care System is in as bad shape as it is, please? [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 17:13, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have to agree with PF Fox ==

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:it's OK. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:If the quotes are to be put in, the entire exchange has to be there, and that includes exactly what transpired on GMA that led to the quote. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:24, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is wondering, this is the exact quote by Ann Coulter, and by looking at the history of the article, anyone can see that part of this quote was taken out and used as if she issued a direct threat against Edwards:
:''"Oh, yeah, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Socialist policies? ==
As a socialist myself, I really wouldn't consider John Edwards to advocate socialist policies. The only one I can think of is health care, aside from that he's a mixed economy sort of chap. --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*''we want a tax code that rewards everyone’s work to build everyone’s wealth''--John Edwards
*''everybody has a responsibility to help everyone else get ahead''-- John Edwards [http://www.saccenti.com/johnnybopper/why.htm]
*''from each as he is able, to each according to his needs''-- Karl Marx
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, RobS. You're claiming that, because some of his statements sound somewhat like Karl Marx's, he advocates the same policies he does. That doesn't follow, does it? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 14:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::You cited the expenditure side of the ledger, I cited the revenue side. The link I provided has much more than what was quoted, for example,
:::''There is nothing new about the shouts of [[class warfare]]. And there is nothing new about saying that some leaders are giving big tax cuts to their wealthy friends on Wall Street. They said it all a hundred years ago. ''
::The whole speech is the politics of [[envy]], pitting "rich" against poor. And we have this double speak:
:::''Everyone who works should have a chance to build up their wealth—the wealth to offer their family security in time of trouble, the '''wealth to pass on a better future to their children.'''''
::and then condemns the GOP with
:::'' they are trying to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent. ''
::So which is it? Are workers entitled to pass on their accumulated wealth to their children or not?

:::''Our tax code should honor every kind of work—the work of a doctor, a mill worker, a janitor. ''
::What about the work of the investor, without which nobody works at all? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Served one term==
"Edwards served in the Senate for one year," it says in the section "Political Career." You mean one ''term''. [[User:Chartero|Chartero]] 20:38, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Pastafarian

2007-10-28T04:01:15Z

ObiBinks: made it more accurate =/

'''Pastafarianism''' is a parody [[religion]] created by a group of [[atheist]]s which claims to believe that a deity known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" created the universe. This belief system was brought into the public eye by Bobby Henderson when he wrote to the Kansas School Board when they were requiring equal time for evolution and intelligent design, and demanded that all forms of [[Intelligent Design]] be taught.

[[Category:Religion]]

Iran-Contra affair

2007-10-28T03:16:28Z

ObiBinks: fixed spelling error

The '''Iran-Contra Affair''' (also sometimes called '''Iran-gate''') was the result of an arms deal between the [[United States]], [[Iran]] and the Nicaraguan [[Contras]], an anti-communist guerilla group operating against the [[Marxist]] government of [[Nicaragua]]. Essentially, arms were sold to Iran against an international embargo which was spearheaded just years earlier by the United States. The proceeds from this arms sale were then used to purchase additional arms for the Contras operating in the mountains of Nicaragua.

The scandal was first discovered by an assistant to Attorney General [[Ed Meese]], who found a memorandum written by Lieutenant Colonel [[Oliver North]] that documented the diversion of funds to the Contras. After the discover of the memorandum, President [[Ronald Reagan]] met with both party's of Congress to disclose their findings; Reagan then asked for the appointment of an independent counsel<ref>''An American Life, The Autobiography of Ronald Reagan, pg. 530''</ref>.

In the opinion of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who investigated the affair, under the Arms Export Control Act <ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sup_01_22_10_39_20_II.html </ref> such sales to foreign powers not deemed under the term of the act friendly are illegal. <ref> http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm </ref> Payments to the Contras from the proceeds of private sales, while not illegal, in the opinion of critics were considered highly unethical. Later such arrangements were made explicitly illegal by the [[Boland amendment]] to the Federal Appropriation Bill. The independent counsel's opinion alleged that the Reagan administration set about misleading congressional inquiries and may have withheld some documents.

When the story was blown open by media outlets in the wake of midterm congressional elections after [[Democrats]] retook the Senate in November 1986. The following week President Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were transferred to Iran but he claimed they were not part of an exchange for hostages. In a speech in March of 1987, he acknowledged that the arms were in fact exchanged for hostages, saying that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages." <ref>http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/reagan/irancontra.html</ref> The Reagan administration cooperated with the investigation, and no wrongdoing was ever proved. Reagan later stated in his autobiography, "until Ed Meese uncovered North's memorandum, I had not heard a whisper about funds being channeled from the Iranian arms shipments to the Contras, and I would have not approved of it if anyone had suggested it to me....Yes, I believed in helping the Contras; ''but no one, including the President, is above the law''." <ref>''An American Life, The Autobiography of Ronald Reagan, pg. 542''</ref>

[[Michael Ledeen]] was an early player in the affair, and eventually arranged for arms sales to Iran though the Iranian arms dealer [[Manucher Ghorbanifar]]. John Poindexter later resigned and later worked in [[George W. Bush]]'s administration. Oliver North was also a major player in the affair and was called upon to testify before Congress and was questioned for a number of days. His strong answers in the face of Congressional grilling led him to become a type of folk hero at Congress's expense. [[Caspar Weinberger]] was indicted, and pardoned by [[George H.W. Bush]].

==Sources==
*[http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch04p2.htm The CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy: A Review of the Justice Department's Investigations and Prosecutions], December 1997

==References==
<small><references/></small>

[[Category:Iran]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Help talk:Contents

2007-10-27T02:56:56Z

ObiBinks:

How do I revert a vandalized page to a previous state? I recently tried to change back a vandalized page but could not figure out how to put in the original references at the end of the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Good Question! Click on the contribs for the user who made the changes. Beside the edit, there is a button that says "rollback". Click that and the edit will be reverted. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 18:40, 21 February 2007 (EST)

: That method only works if you are a "sysop" (admin). I would recommend just copying the changed stuff fromt he previous revision. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:42, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I figured out how to do it by clicking the date of the previous edit before the vandalism under that page's history. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:46, 21 February 2007 (EST)

== Help please? I'm new, and I'm lost, and I can't figure out where to go==
For the sake of ease, can I have an email with someone? I don't really understand this, and I really only wanted to write an essay about liberals reading conservapedia articles. I am a hardcore liberal, and I have always held Conservapedia in high regards, but I have a few things that I wanted to mention to people of Conservapedia as a whole. I don't really know how to do anything of any sorts, so can someone in authority please give me an email? Obi.binks@gmail.com Thanks! -- [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 22:56, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== Signatures ==

I've looked around but I can't figure out how to leave a signature when I post to a discussion page. Can someone help? Thanks.
:Just type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> for your signature. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 19:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==What is with this site?==
Every third click gets a "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" message. What gives? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 00:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Interwiki links==

Sure would be convenient if we could link to Wikipedia without having to type all that http stuff. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: From what I've been able to tell, links to Wikipedia seem to be looked down upon a bit. Though some users here are also from [[CreationWiki]], and that might be another one that people might want to link to. I guess it takes some [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Guide_for_system_administrators_for_setting_up_interwiki_linking direct poking at the database] to set these up... perhaps {{user|Conservapedia Webmaster}} would be the one to do this? --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Images ==

The two entries, "How to upload a image" and "How to place an image on a page" are exactly the same....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 03:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I need help trying to upload images on my computer and says that .jpg is not a recommended file name. I saw it as one of the several options to do on the upload page. I got the file name and filled in the summary. What's wrong? --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 18:26, 7 April 2007

==Formatting==
Is there a standard format for pages? Are there examples of that? Shouldn't that be listed here? Do you have notability standards at all? If not, can I make a page about my mom? [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 05:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocked Users/IP Addresses.... ==

Is this something all users will be able to see?

Someone posted over on Andy's page, with privacy concerns about the IP thing. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 08:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

If the Webmaster will institute a page for Metals or Metallurgy, I will begin to add a number of terms and definitions as well as other information to that page that may be helpful to others that are looking for information on that topic. PhilH.
:You can create the page yourself, not hard. Do a search for it, then click the "start new page" link. This is a wiki, you can contribute.[[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Creating a path to essay of a subject new to Conservapedia ==

I have created a page on a topic of abortion, but it is almost non-findable. I need to know how to make it findable. Right now, I think the only way to find it is by searching for "Separate Life". Not many people are going to know that they should do this.

The way I thought it should be is this:

1) From main page, search for abortion. Go.

2) Click on Separate Life in the Contents

So I need to know how to list it in the Contents.
I would also then need to know how to make a link so that if one clicks on Separate Life, his computer would take him to the Separate Life page. [[User:Earl100|Earl100]]

*You could create a new page, and move the old one to it, no?--[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:36, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

No. I don't even understand that.

*I will refer this to the CPWebmaster, whom I know can help you! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 14:29, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I would suggest two ways to do this. One would be to put one or more categories at the bottom of the page, like this : <nowiki>[[category:medicine]]</nowiki> - and preview to make sure the cats exist; or look on the list of categories that "category" will then link to to find one or more appropriate cats. Each category gets its own tag. It is suggested that all articles should be categorized, by the way. The other way is to look for articles on similar topics, and see if they should mention the topic of your new article. If so, include such a sentence or mention (or a "See Also") and link them to your file. Just make sure it makes sense in the article you link from. Hope this helps! [[User:Human|Human]] 15:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: Earl, if you want to make a link to a page enclose the title of the page in two brackets, like this, <nowiki>[[Separate Life]]</nowiki>. I just added your essay to the bottom of the [[abortion]] page as "Essay on abortion." Let me know if you need any more help. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 15:46, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== How do I create a Category page? ==

How do I create a Category page? I am trying to create the category of [[Accounting terms]] (for the [[asset]], [[liability]], and [[Balance Sheet]] pages) but I don't know how to do it - can anyone help, please? thanks --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 23:40, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Where your articles have [[:category|Accounting terms]] at the bottom of the page (under "category"), click on that red link, and you will find yourself on the [[:category|Accounting terms]] page, which will list the three articles. in a sense, you've already done it! But in order to turn those red links into blue links, put something in the edit box on that page, so that the page contains more than just the list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you very much for the explanation! It was so simple to do that I feel foolish now, lol :p The difficulty came because I wasn't typing anything in the edit box, thinking the list of pages would be automatically generated with the new page (it was, but I needed to type something too). Again, thank you. --[[User:Taj|Taj]] 14:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Uploading images ==
I understand about the ability to upload images, but I am lost at what kind of images should be uploaded to Wikipedia and what image licenses should be avoided or not. Thanks. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 16:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*You need to ask Wikipedia about that! :p --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 17:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

**Ok, sorry about that. I meant to say Conservapedia (it's getting hard typing the new name out, to be honest). I ask the question of uploading images, since I know about two image resources we can use for photos, mostly of state leaders. I just wasn't sure what your policies were. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Most State Leaders are considered Public Domain, especially when taken from government sites. If you can be more specific, I can attempt to answer you, or (more likely) find you the answer ;-). --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 15:01, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
**The websites I plan on uploading the images from are from Kremlin.ru and, hopefully, president.gov.by. They are the official websites of the Russian and Belarusian presidency, respectively. I will provide the text, in English, in a few. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 15:12, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
**Ok, from the President of Belarus: ''Use of materials of the portal - The materials of portal can be used in the media, be extended in the network the Internet without any limitations on volume and periods of publication. Reference to the ultimate source is only condition. No preliminary agreement to the use of materials of portal from the side of the press- service of the President of republic Belarus' it is required. '' [http://www.president.gov.by/press28825.html]. For the President of Russia, please read [http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/articles/about_siteEng06.shtml]. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 15:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
''"All materials on the Presidential website may be reproduced in any media outlets, on Internet servers or on any other information supports without restriction on the amount of material and time of publication. This authorisation covers equally newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV channels '''and Internet sites.''' The only condition is that any reproduction or broadcasting of the website’s materials contain a reference to the original source. No prior approval from the Presidential Press and Information Office is required to reprint information from the website."''
</blockquote>

So you merely state in the comment box when you upload, that the picture is "free use". :-) --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:Alright, thanks a bunch. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] 17:41, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Why? Why? ==

Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by SharonS. The reason given is Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Celtish". The reason given for Celtish's block is: "'".

You can contact SharonS or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is 90.240.152.67, and the block ID is #18750. Please include either or both of these in any queries.