User talk:DanH

Archive: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew

Much Better

Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine? Rob Pommer_talk

Thatcher

Would you have objections to the Thatcher edits? The article was clearly one sided, which is not in the spirit of this encyclopedia.

?

Cut what out exactly?

I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. Wattylfc 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Big edits

Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? GodlessLiberal 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. GodlessLiberal 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --Thammersmith 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the revert! Crocoite ^Talk 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Main Page

i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.Bohdan 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?

---

will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)

Lazarus

The new article Lazarus (Parable) is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to (Lazarus).

Could you please do it?

--Joaquín Martínez 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you!

--Joaquín Martínez 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Good luck

with that paper. --Hojimachong^talk 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

vandals

Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --Thammersmith 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Please vote for me

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Eagle...

I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? Human 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Question

Question for you on the Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship page. Jrssr5 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind ... saw your reason. Jrssr5 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Grandpa!

Nananana Batman!

• 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --Ed Poor 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--Aschlafly 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Dan

I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

New Age

What was wrong with my edits to New Age that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. DrSandstone 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Budapest

I understood.--Kádár Tamás 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Beaver ?

"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my Beaver article is entirely factual.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [1]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about Beavers it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --Jeremiah4-22 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Just wondering

What could I do to gain your trust? Flippin 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT) Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. Flippin 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

NAMBLA

I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --Hojimachong^talk 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Mammon

I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--JoyousOne 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

User:JeffersonDarcy

I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using Edit Warring as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [2] and I want to make a record I support it. RobS 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I screwed up, as a guideline this reads 3 hours to one week after the warning. RobS 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandal

No problem. Thanks for blocking him. Murray 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --Hojimachong^talk 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This guy really needs to get a life. My annoyance with him is negated by my laughs over his pathetic hobby. --Hojimachong^talk 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No joke. Doesn't he have anything better to do on a Sunday? DanH 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Polap Srewdna

he didn't edit, why the block?

You can talk to me directly

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. Tmtoulouse 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. Tmtoulouse 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. Tmtoulouse 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Toulouse would've told me if there was a conspiracy. I feel left out of there is one that he's hiding from me.-AmesG_yo! 20:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I was too quick to judge and I apologize again for it. DanH 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Page Delete Request

Could you please delete a page for me. I'm an idiot and was working while watching tv. I accidentally mistyped the page I wanted as "Deviance Behaviour" instead of "Deviant Behaviour". I can't figure out how to undo it, so it must mean I can't. Thanks --TrueGrit 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Bohdan

I see you're still having trouble with Icewedge. His post on Bohdan's userpage looks like they're working together. Do you think a block of Bohdan is necessary? Reaganomist 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i have no involvment with himBohdan

Simpsons are really liberal

Homer punched out George Bush and called president Bush Commander Kookoobananas. Not to mention that he supported Republican parodys Mr. Burns as governor and sideshow Bob. Somebody should show how liberal they really are!!!

I think the Simpsons speaks for itself. If one can't pick up on the undertones by themselves, then they are an idiot.--Elamdri 17:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Leftists strike again. Are you going to accuse me of being "inbred" and living in a "trailer" for your next act?--ILikeCookies 17:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't making fun of you. I just think that going around telling people the Simpsons carries a liberal message is a redundant act. Most people who watch the Simpsons already know that it carries said message, and if they don't they're either burying their heads in the sand, or they really are just ignorant.--Elamdri 17:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

The Simpsons are satire, especially early seasons. They make fun of everybody. DanH 17:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandal attacks

Conservative must resign as a sysop before there is any chance of the vandal attacks ending. Davros 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5. RobS 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --AKjeldsen 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I tell ya, what makes me suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up. They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! Human 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

C'mon - you're still a newbie, Human. I mean, you haven't even been threatened with the 90/10 rule yet, have you? --AKjeldsen 20:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hahaha, well, actually, that's probably the one rule they could never bust me on. Have you checked my alleged contribs lately? The only thing I've been accused of is relying on myth-filled, distorted YEC science texts. Oh, and I was mean to someone who used very poor grammar once, but Ed (I think) deleted it and I fixed it and sorried for it. What does make me a n00b, I guess, is not knowing what all this fuss over evolution is about? Human 20:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think anyone knows what it's about. GodlessLiberal 20:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia

Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Page deletions

Thanks for the recent deletions of unwanted British articles, they seem to be spreading a vast web of lies over us, ill try and keep my eye out for them. Jennisuk 13:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

what on earth is "unwanted" and who decides? I note that faggot has been deleted; http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/faggotswithoniongrav_3899.shtml is the first google hit for "faggots" (through google.co.uk). These things are easily verifiable without even consulting wikipedia. --Olly 15:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Likewise the article on Chip Shops, the Ham Shank and Tommy Toley, all much loved British cultural treasures. Is it true that 90% of Americans have no passport and are not interested in anything outside the US of A? Tommy Toley 15:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, just like 78.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.--Elamdri 15:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Surely 77.4% is the approved Conservative figure. That 78.9% number looks very LIBERAL to me. GUARDS!!!!!! Tommy Toley 15:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

earlier you twice deleated the page faggot. can you delete it again, or is it now allowed?Bohdan

Faggot

Whay on earth are you protecting Faggot? This is the kind of filth I protest at and you are protecting it? What kind of sysop are you? DrSnoddy 18:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It would appear that you have deleted and protected an article on Northern English cuisine. I fail to see how this could be controversial. Is this a case of Anglophobia or racsism? An Encyclopedia should cover all knowledge (that's what the word means). Perhaps you could expand your reasons for this. MontyZuma 18:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Further (non-Conservopedia) research has led me to conclude that what we in the UK consider the main meanings of the word faggot are unfortunately almost completely unknown in the United States of America, where the word has merely the most unsavoury connotations (as I learned earlier this evening from the now deleted article). It is unfortunate but a fact that some words have been denuded of their wholesome content and effecively rendered unfit for polite usage. Faggot appears to be one such word, though I will continue to munch on and indeed cook with faggots as long as I breathe British air.

Such staple words of the English language should not be tainted in such a way. It was bad enough finding out that "gay" means something other than happy and that the tadger is no longer purely descriptive of the pocket billiards cue. Queen Elizabeth herself should issue a proclamation and prevent the noble langue d'Anglaise from further bowdlerising. William H Bhuna 18:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

William, I agree in principle, yet amcoming to recognize increasingly that Conservapedia is very much an American undertaking. I expect 'bowdlerise' also means something frightful in Colonial parlance.DDWatkinsIII 18:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Quite possibly, they are that far from the Queen's presence that surely all those hamburgers and MTV have tainted their minds. And DanH, I consider it rude for you to block me as I was merely correcting an unfortunate spelling of the town of Thirsk - home of a fine church and a finer brewery dating back over 300 years. When you have some history dating back farther than that, feel free to excersise your "right" to block me. Until then, make sure you salute the Queen before every meal and pray to the TRUE flag, the Union Jack. we exiled you rabble once and you raped the langue D'Anglais, you no longer support your true queen and you heathens never even invented cricket. Call that civilised? William H Bhuna II 18:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Did I miss something? What unsavoury connotation could be construed from a faggot when it is a savoury dish - i.e. not sweet. Perhaps some ignorance has interfered with the Queen's or indeed King's English as faggots go back many hundreds of years. Any way please enlighten me on how it is unacceptable.MontyZuma 18:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Strange as it may seem, Mr. Zuma (and it is a pleasure to communicate with you), the word faggot, though in the English language it calls to mind nothing more unwholesome than a meaty mouthful of beef, dripping with copious quantities of gravy, or a short firm stick of the burning kind, in the American demotic appears to refer to the unspeakable sect of Bulgars and their Carthigensian praxii. I hope my meaning is clear. DDWatkinsIII 19:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I take your point, I had forgotten about the Bashi-bazouks. I can understand some discomfort regarding the negative connotations of faggot adopted in the erstwhile colonies but surely the page could have been protected intactum before any untoward vandalism occurred. In this way inquiring minds would have been directed down a wholesome path of truth rather than S & G deviance. I am well reminded of Matthew 7:3-5

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, 
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the 
mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Deviance is in the eye of the beholder. Let the innocent come forth and speak the truth without fear. MontyZuma 18:59, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Question

can you delete User:Sisterhix and the talk page? You blocked this user yesterday(blocked "Sisterhix (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (racism)) and the comments on the page are offensive to Jews(specifically the use of "kike").Bohdan

From Conservapedian

Thanks for the welcome.--Conservapedian 01:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Image Protection

Why are you protecting all the images? ColinR^talk 02:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

• Andy ordered that we do, Colin. Because users are going in and substituting what is there for porn. I believe we chatted about that last night, no? If we didn't, please forgive me for not mentioning it, I should have. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 02:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

IP Trace and Madison

Alternatively, he could have gone to any one of the open computer labs. Each department likely has a lab or two, along with each dormitory, each library, and each wireless hot spot. Each one of these has a distinct set of IP addresses. Ultimately, to block it will probably be necessary to block access to all three class B networks that are owned by the UW Madison. With possible 65,534 addresses per network, there is quite a bit of room for distinct IP addresses. --Mtur 15:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

There were only two distinct IP addresses for these users, whereas the other vandal we've had from the same university only had one IP address, which makes me think that they were different people. My theory is that the other one just operated out of his dorm room or something. It's possible, though. DanH 15:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

images

Hi Dan, could you please fix the image in New Mexico for me? I can't seem to get the hang of situating images in the pages here yet, I'm still learning "wiki" formatting. I added some info to the page, but now I can't get the photo that was already there to look right - could you please help? It's much appreciated, thanks! --Taj 15:58, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Vladimir Putin

In response to your question in an edit summary ("does anybody know how to fix it so that this source doesn't show up twice in the references list?"), this is how you do it.

Thanks

Your rewording of Hinderburg clarified it very well. Thank you.MoshiachNow 17:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)