Difference between revisions of "User talk:CamilleT"

Latest revision as of 01:29, March 7, 2012

Santorum

We're gonna need the Dan Savage article to fill in the red link at Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities. Thanks. Rob Smith 16:01, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Alright. I'll see what I can do.--CamilleT 16:03, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

How's the Dan Savage page coming? Not read for prime time? Rob Smith 17:01, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

give me a day or so, I just got a new toilet installed in my apartment and the old one leaked everywhere while I was taking it out and I really need to clean the place up and stop going on the internet!--CamilleT 17:08, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Sarkozy

Vive la France... sans Sarkozy! --Joaquín Martínez 22:29, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Pienso que la derecha francés es mejor que la derecha Americana, pero solo para las libertades sociales. Los dos necessitan mente el tercer mundo que se rompió en el primer lugar (lo siento por mi espanol de idioto)--CamilleT 22:39, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Media Bias

I looked into those headlines, yes those are authentic Fox News. I don't get the bias part. The AP and Fox have different target audiences. Just because the title changes doesn't mean it is stolen. In addition, the story had AP attribution on the picture. I am sure AP is aware or would've cried intellectual property rights.

Get a better idea of the leftwing side of media bias, which is the absolute scourge of the American people, view this link on Dear Leader economics. [1]--Jpatt 19:38, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

I only skimmed through the post and found it amusing. I don't believe Fox "stole" the stories, I just think they put their own spin on them. I'll have a look at your link (I get most of my news from AP, APF, and Reuters from my Yahoo! homepage, and sometimes NPR when I feel like turning on the radio). Can't promise a conversion though ;) --CamilleT 19:56, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

I looked at your link, but I'm unsure of what conclusions I should take from it. I think it's normal that predictions fall short of reality. It also depends on which experts you consult. Were they referring to their own experts or the estimations of the Obama administration?--CamilleT 16:19, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Hello

Salut de l'Angleterre :) Just wanted to say hi, I admire the way you have been posting in the last few days and I think you are helping a lot to improve the quality of this encyclopedia! Keep up the good work! And, oui, je parle francais :) --Leo-from-UK 16:01, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Pleased to meet you, and glad to be of service--CamilleT 16:01, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

No!!

Please, PLEASE, revert your edit with that link to the essay response. You should know how this place works (it doesn't). TerryB 16:18, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Don't worry. It was not an unreasonable deed on my part, and I'm sure the administrators will understand. I was merely facilitating access to the replies to the Question Evolution campaign. I have also proven myself with some quality contributions and Conservapedia's administrators know I'm not here to cause trouble. --CamilleT 16:25, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

It's a bit premature to declare that you have "proven yourself", and that is a matter one usually leaves to others. Consider yourself on probation. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:50, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Told you. Sorry. TerryB 19:17, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

a warning

I have publicly said that I do not agree with everything at Conservapedia. With being said, linking to a source which cites material from a trashy site which is associated with wiki vandals was a poor choice. The website is filled with obsessive underachievers and their content reflects this matter. I would suggest not doing it again. conservative 19:20, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

As you wish. In my defense, though, I believe the link was necessary in order to communicate the answers to the questions. Worry not: I shall henceforth comply and never link there again--CamilleT 19:25, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

That person could have easily posted that material at another website. Perhaps, it was just a cheap publicity ploy by a group of obsessive underachievers who have a penchant to do wiki vandalism. I think they are angry that their fun house mirror distortion of reality (also known as atheism) isn't gaining much traction on the worldwide web or in the world at large.  :) conservative 20:21, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Well, the answers were there, as I'm sure they are wherever else other online evolutionists go. Try talk.origins or something if you can't bear the vandal site.--CamilleT 21:12, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Pat "answers" don't count. By pat answers I mean non-answers which are evasive. conservative 21:40, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Addendum: I hope that clarifies matters. conservative 21:43, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Then we'll have to agree to disagree as to the content of the answers. Thanks for clarifying--CamilleT 21:45, 25 June 2011 (EDT)

Bernard Henri Levi

Could you review the new entry at Bernard Henri Levi, you may be familiar with the subject. I would be in interested in any comments you may have. Rob Smith 17:49, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

I'd love to. I'll leave some comments on the talk page, maybe make some edits and add references. Thanks for restoring my user page!--CamilleT 18:58, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Citing a reference twice

To cite a refernce multiplew times, use <ref name="enter something here">ref goes here</ref>, and then <ref name="same as first citation" /> for any subsequent citations. MeganH 19:26, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Post-partum depression

How do you feel about "spiritual guide" as opposed to "holy man"? SharonW 08:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

works for me--CamilleT 09:35, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

RE: Good to see you!

Thanks. I was recently unblocked from here. I'm surprised to see another user from my wiki of preference here. --Michaeldsuarez 16:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Pièce de résistance of Conservapedia content relating to atheism

I just thought I would let you know that the pièce de résistance of Conservapedia content relating to atheism that I plan on creating and posting will not be a satire/comedy that is featured on Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution, but rather an article. Maybe a satire or two could be created as well though.

Perhaps, it will gain a larger viewership than the Conservapedia article on the LARGE members of the atheist community. I didn't expect to the article on Atheism and cowardice for a while, but some recent events changed the timing of the creation and posting of this article. I may create the "pièce de résistance of Conservapedia content relating to atheism" in 2011 or perhaps 2012. Given the unpredictability of my future schedule and the unpredictability on how fast atheism will shrivel to a shadow of its former self due to the efforts of Shockofgod co-laboring with the Almighty[2], it is hard to say when the article will come out. :) Conservative 19:26, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

I look forward to reading it. Just be sure not to disparage bystanders such as I this time, please.--CamilleT 10:57, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

There has been a request to create the pièce de résistance of atheism related material at Conservapedia expeditiously. Plus, there is still some confusion on the format it will take. The pièce de résistance will take the format of an article on atheism and not an essay, although there may be a few accompanying related satirical essays that may follow. As far as the timing of the release of the article, I will not say when it will be released. It may be very soon, it may be longer. But here is a video for atheists to take into consideration. Conservative 17:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)