User talk:HenryS

Complain below, please

I have noticed how often you have gone around and helpfully added category or whatnot to articles after I have fuddled them up. Just wanted to thank you. :) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

There's not much going on right now. Recent changes is flooded with deletions. Thanks for creating the article, its always nice to get new content. Btw, are you going to start up a discussion for Liberal Style? Since we both know deletion is unlikely, perhaps request moving it out of the encyclopedia namespace? HenryS 17:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I try not to pick fights over any of the honeypot articles. I mean, if I were to go after Liberal Style I'd have to go after the literally thirty similar pages, and probably the forty-odd pages with nothing but quotes about homosexuality. I'd rather edit on issues of clear fact, rather than on things deemed "obvious" and get myself condemned as "clueless."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:55, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I know that these thirty Liberal _____ articles will always exist on this site. But that is no reason to create even more of them (Conservative ______). The problem is that they are inherently unencyclopedic, though I am sure you know that already. A massive cross-namespace move isn't too difficult, why not pursue that? Perhaps to the "conservapedia" namespace? Or how about requesting adding all of them into a single "list of liberal characteristics" article, so that way there aren't so many of them? HenryS 18:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

That's a good point. If I write a petition to this effect, will you sign it?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Most likely. Also ask CPAdmin1. HenryS 18:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

User:TomMoore/Petition_Regarding_Ideological_Articles :) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:23, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I already signed. I would wait a few days then present it to ASchalfly. HenryS 18:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Alrighty.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Could you explain what was nonsensical about the article? The content was calculated from an actual page on Conservapedia, so I'm unsure about what exactly the issue was. --IlTrovatore 23:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

The article was not witty, it was factual. I would say that any material that is supported with factual evidence and makes claims that do not seek to further an argument is appropriate for an encyclopedia. In fact, I believe that an encyclopedia is strengthened when it acknowledges and addresses its own editorial practices. --IlTrovatore 23:34, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

On that note, can the article be reinstated? --IlTrovatore 20:23, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

No. Please be serious about this project. We would all appreciate if you write about notable things. HenryS 20:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

But what counts as "notable"? Why are all the "liberal _____" articles "notable," but an article detailing Conservapedia's editorial practices are not? Please do not dismiss this as a joke; I am asking you a serious question about what determines whether or not a topic is worthy of inclusion. --IlTrovatore 23:37, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

The "Liberal ______" articles are not encyclopedic, I agree. If you want, go sign that petition. HenryS 23:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

In an effort to appease your desire for "encyclopedic content" while at the same time filling what I believe to be a valid need for commentary on Conservapedia's own editorial practices, I would like to create a page about the more general topic of Conservapedia's features and how they are used. I would like to work with you to accomplish this in a way that is agreeable to everyone, yet still portrays the truth. --IlTrovatore 23:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

A lesson in irony (Guard Dog)

Second autoblock in just a few hours... XD Thanks for reverting it, and I'm sure that vandal got a good laugh out of it, too :P --KevinM 18:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

RE: Lenski

Alright, thank you for the tip --TrueValues 20:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Now, if you could only ask Aschlafly the same about editing out relevant biographical information?--Argon 21:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I guess if he thinks it is not relevant for conservapedia, then it isn't. HenryS 21:30, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey

It looks like you actually create content whose sole purpose is not to disparage the opposing viewpoint and advance wildly insane versions of the conservative view. Why don't you stop deluding yourself and actually join a decent collaborative encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I mean, Conservapedia, trustworthy? The inherent bias in the name makes that assertion laughably ironic.FatVirgin 20:13, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey

It looks like you actually create content whose sole purpose is not to disparage the opposing viewpoint and advance wildly insane versions of the conservative view. Why don't you stop deluding yourself and actually join a decent collaborative encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I mean, Conservapedia, trustworthy? The inherent bias in the name makes that assertion laughably ironic.FatVirgin 20:13, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Likely vandal

Hi Henry. User:NNSTK17 seems to be a vandal. Please look at his edit history. -Foxtrot 18:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Blocked. HenryS 19:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)