User talk:Learn together

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a {{speedy template to Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating any article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to Roman Empire! --Hojimachong^talk 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Note that Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --Hojimachong^talk 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Useful links

• How to edit a wiki
• CP Commandments
• CP Guidelines
• Style Manual
• Editing Etiquette
• How to create and maintain high-quality articles
• Report Problems
• List of Templates

Welcome!

Hello, Learn together, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, Learn together!

Sysop-TK _/MyTalk

Clinton Revert....

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[1]] --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[2]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Good Job

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! DanH 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Saint Andrew

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)" complain about Andrew and Philip along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Highlighting Links

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it. Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or GodWarrior when you wrote this. HeartOfGold 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

My pleasure

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

Edit summaries

I appreciate this edit, and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. HeartOfGold_talk 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Compliment

Excellent work on the Rather article.Bohdan ^Talk 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Global Warming, et.al.

You might want to consider this [[3]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Request

Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on Justinian? It seems he is someone you would know much about.Bohdan ^Talk 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry!

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you

The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.Bohdan ^Talk 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.Богдан ^Talk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Atheism

What's the problem with my edit to the atheism page? --ThunderBunny 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

• I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic")
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br> (cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence)

--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Most of those weren't my edits. --ThunderBunny 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --ThunderBunny 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) Learn together 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --ThunderBunny 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. Learn together 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Answer

Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.Богдан ^Talk 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

• I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Solomon

Hi, I checked out your House of David article and followed the first link to Solomon. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --Colest 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Article for your attention please

Four Emperors Era needs work and it seems like you would know about it. Богдан ^Talk 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

nice work LT bd ^Talk 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Glad you like it ;-) Learn together 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

correction made. Conservative 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Glad I could help Learn together 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry!

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. :P --BethanyS^Talk 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Intuitive page naming

Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for Antonia ... your article is actually about Antonia Minor, who also had a sister named Antonia, Antonia Major. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called Bob or Smith and expecting your choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Uribe Human Rights Abuses

Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --FreedomandLiberty 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks Learn together 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.