https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Onit 2026-10-07T02:59:40Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Flat_Earth&diff=485717 2008-07-02T13:27:06Z

<p>Onit: I'm still waiting to be banned.</p> <hr /> <div>The Flat Earth theory is an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere, therefore we will make the ridiculous claim that it was invented by evilushunists.<br /> <br /> Ummm... That's all. This article doesn't need to be long, just informative.<br /> <br /> Yes, it's really... informative. I swear. I'm not making this shit up.</div>

Onit https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mathematics&diff=471008 2008-06-11T13:01:04Z

<p>Onit: Ban me! Now! No, seriously, do it! I'm waiting........................</p> <hr /> <div>This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}<br /> <br /> : Dude, you misspelled &quot;testament&quot;. Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.<br /> <br /> : Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of &quot;more words is better.&quot; We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Sometimes, more ''is'' better. Case in point: [[Riemann hypothesis]]. Why the hell are the &quot;non-trivial zeros&quot; of any significance? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis Wikipedia], of course, provides a much more comprehensive article, giving you at least a clue of how significant an effect the hypothesis has on the study of prime numbers, for starters.<br /> :: But, no matter, I can tell that Conservapedia does, indeed put a much higher value on mathematical (addition) problems than on the standard CAPTCHA challenge of deciphering squiggly letters. ;) --[[User:Onit|Onit]] 09:01, 11 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of &quot;testiment&quot; after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]<br /> <br /> : Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)</div>

Onit