Difference between revisions of "User talk:MountainDew"

Revision as of 23:01, March 12, 2007

Question: What did I do wrong in the entry for God? It is a fact that all three of those religions worship the same god. They worship different prophets(Islam has Mohammed, Christianity has Jesus and Judaism believes that the son of god hasn't arrived yet), but they do all believe in the same god.

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, I just didn't know how to send you a message.

Due to your excellent contributions to Conservapedia, you have been made a SYSOP. With these new privileges, you can block any troublesome users by clicking the block button next to their username. You can also revert vandalism using the method described here. Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning. Congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! ~ SharonS 20:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Your welcome! ~ SharonS 20:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome. Tmtoulouse 01:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Explaining reversions

When reverting as you did here, it is generally helpful to explain why you choose to revert. JoshuaZ 17:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'll do that in the future. The user in question was obviously trying to be snarky, but that's nothing I couldn't have specified. MountainDew 17:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It didn't strike me as snarky. It seemed to me to be highly reasonable especially since there issues when we use the term "creationist" precisely what we mean, whether YEC or some other form. This is discussed briefly at creationism. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense to say someone was in a category when everyone in their time period was in that category. It would be like labeling Julius Caesar pagan. JoshuaZ 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I would dispute whether everybody was a creationist in 1841, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over, so if you wish to revert it back, feel free. MountainDew 17:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Good entry!

Nice entry on Henry David Thoreau! Thanks!--Aschlafly 15:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I hope to expand on it eventually. MountainDew 02:32, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Tournament Chess Player

That's impressive that you're a tournament chess player! I liked chess but was never very good at it.--Aschlafly 17:24, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I never actually started taking the game seriously until high school. It just became an addiction for me. MountainDew 18:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Wow, you play chess too? What's your rating? Can I have your name to check it out on USCF.org? Good luck- Meekrok

Koronus

Don't worry I unblocked him to tweak his block. I found an obscene deleted article floating around . He is now blocked for 1 year. Geo. 01:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Edit reverted as vandalism.

Regarding [1] it was added by User:Conservative so I presume it was meant to be serious. JoshuaZ 20:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think that at the very least, there shouldn't be a statement that implies that the existence of unicorns is definite. MountainDew 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Staying up Late

Does Jesus know you are staying up late on a Friday night standing guard over Conservapedia? Shouldn't you be out attempting to be fruitful and multiply?

Delete and block

Please delete Mecha Jesus again and block the user in question. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Cheesy potatoes

I think it was a little trigger-happy of you to delete the article without saying anything in the discussion taking place at Talk:Cheesy potatoes. It's not too late to discuss it there now. I'm not suggesting you undelete it, but I think the creator of the article should be given a chance to explain.

Entirely guesswork on my part, but I think it was a good-faith if frivolous contribution by a youngish person. Dpbsmith 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. At Wikipedia I don't believe this would have been a valid "speedy deletion" (one performed by a sysop without discussion). Dpbsmith 13:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Making conservatives look bad?

How am i making conservatives look bad? Scooter Libby is a pariah although liberals don't want to admit it... I thought this site was about the truth--PatRobertson2008 20:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich!

Poor guy! They were making him look bad in 1995 and it's back again! We need to have his reponse here! I don't want a closet liberal like Giuilani or Mitt Romney to become president!--PatRobertson2008 20:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You'd rather have an admitted adulterer and hypocrite? --Sandbagger 15:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What are you trying to say? And I've never endorsed any political candidate on Conservapedia. I am only trying to remove obvious vandalism. MountainDew 15:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Good block and revert

Excellent block and rollback, and locking of the Bush page. Very well done! As you did, when it is an obscenity then simply put on an infinite block. We don't want that block ever expiring. Thanks!--Aschlafly 20:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. You're absolutely right about being suspicious based on the user id (or screen name). It's amazing how 95% of the time the user id is an obvious giveaway to the bad intentions.--Aschlafly 20:45, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Great move in protecting Ann Coulter. Thanks!--Aschlafly 15:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

why did you block me?

The first line of that article was entirely evolutionist, I was adding the American view. --Joseph84 19:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't block you. Your entry was clearly sarcastic. I only warned you. MountainDew 19:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"Sex" page

I just made a pretty little table on the page, and then protected it from editing. So the page does exist, but without any content but the table. --Hojimachong 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Not Sure

I'm not quite sure. Ask Andrew, he should know. --Hojimachong^talk 22:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems as though you've figured it out. How do you do it? --Hojimachong^talk 22:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Facebook

Could you send me a Facebook invite? The Email this User link is active for me. Thanks, --Hojimachong^talk 00:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't get the link to work. However, you don't have to have an invite to register. I can send you the link to that actual page within the site if you register. MountainDew 00:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the info. --Hojimachong^talk 00:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Bad Editing

Look, I didn't delete everything written before as you allege. Compare the two and you'll see that. All of the previous contributions are there, minus grammar errors and POV stuff. Maybe you should read a little more before you jump to conclusions.... Romney4King

There are some differences, but they aren't as substantial as I thought at first, and I do see that your edits produce a well written article, so I'm going to leave it. MountainDew 15:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Multiple reversions without explanation

User Ank mangled my contribution, which was factual. Then you go ahead and revert both his mangling of it while deleting my contribution all together. That's not fair. --Ben 15:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted everything he did because he vandalized about 15 pages and I couldn't look at all of them while keeping up with the current wave of vandalism. Feel free to re-incorporate your edits. MountainDew 15:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You're the one being biased.

"Fair trade" is what the liberals use to cover up the stigma of the protectionism.

British English

I don't understand how British spelling is inherently biased whereas American spelling isn't. Perhaps you'd care to explain this. PraiseTheLard 17:54, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

President of the United States

Hi, I was just adding some details to this article, which you deleted. Don't you think there should be a bit more detail here? It just seems to me that, if this is to be an encyclopedia, it ought to have a more detailed account of how something like the Electoral College works.

Boethius 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

We both know the general goal of your inclusion of those statements, which is to imply that Bush's election was illegitimate. As this is a Conservative encyclopedia, we don't generally want half of the article of the Electoral College serving as a vehicle for these claims. MountainDew 18:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I was trying to revise the article so that it would *not* imply that Bush was not properly elected -- it had been vandalized before I started editing it, and had statements in it about how Bush thinks he is a king. Look at the version just before the ones I edited and you will see that I was taking that kind of stuff *out*, not putting it in!!

Boethius 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Proceed ahead then. MountainDew 18:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Pi

Why did you revert my post. Please tell me where I misrepresented the Bible. Everything I added was properly cited and true. Can you prove to me that Kings 7:23 doesn't say Pi is 3? Isn't this a conservative and Christian encyclopedia? Thanks- Meekrok

Come on, we both know you're being sarcastic here. MountainDew 19:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)