Last modified on July 29, 2009, at 23:31

User talk:Learn together

Return to "Learn together" page.



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


Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--Aschlafly 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations and welcome aboard! DanH 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
Congrats, man! --transResident Transfanform! 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --Crocoite 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. Jinkas 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. HelpJazz 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) Learn together 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Excellent promotion, congratulations! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. BrianCo 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) Dalek 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him Dalek 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. HenryS 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)


  • 14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --MilesM 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Virgin Mary gallery

Any contribution? Virgin Mary gallery

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)


Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [1]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, HenryS 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. Learn together 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. HenryS 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

City/town/county names as article titles

In case you don't check the manual of style talk page very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. Jinkas 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

September 11, 2001 attacks

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" StatsMsn 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. DanH 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. StatsMsn 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. Learn together 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? StatsMsn 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Vietnam War Reversion

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. Willink 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off

Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. HumbleServant 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. Learn together 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. HumbleServant 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)


See Orange talk. Ta. AdenJ 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch?

I got the link![2] Can you upload for the The Scream page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TagoPagdaluhong (talk)

Nevermind, I found it--TagoPagdaluhong 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

your edits to Orthodox Church

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! Dchall1 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. Dchall1 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Posted a note here, and I'd appreciated your comment. Cheers! Dchall1 23:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Golden Compass article block

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? Jinxmchue 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks Learn together 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)


Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again! RKLuffy88

Featured articles

Please see Conservapedia talk:Featured articles. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Thurgood Marshall

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. Learn together 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --Ed Poor Talk 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Nice block

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--Aschlafly 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Andy ;-) Learn together 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

NASA Pictures

The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--Jimmy 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)


You appear to have removed my section about the pogroms against the Jews during the First Crusade in your reorg of Crusades. Was that a mistake or did you intend to do so? I was going to just assume the former, since it was well-sourced, but I thought it might do to check anyway.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

It was intentional as it was misplaced. The First Crusade was a success. The reference was to the totality of the Crusades and why they failed. If your source leaves out the pain of Francis of Assisi when he visited the Crusader army based on what he saw or the need of the Pope to excommunicate the Crusaders during a later Crusade, and believes it was only due to not keeping Church holidays, then it won't stay. Learn together 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT) could have added those things, if you wanted, without removing other accurate information, don't you think? Or moved it if you thought it was misplaced? Isn't that the usual thing done with sourced actual information? Are you denying the pogrom that occurred in the Rhine valley, which is what I was asking about?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
It depends what you think is accurate. The information was entered based upon the 'failure' of the First Crusade and the reasons for it - while in reality that was the one Crusade that succeeded far beyond what would be expected. It's not my place to try to salvage information under those conditions. If you wish to see what information should be put back into the article in some form, one of the things you should ask yourself is does it belong and why? The previous avenue has been closed. I would hope your desire is to enrich the article with whatever information you find that is naturally a part of the subject and that however that unfolds, it unfolds. Learn together 03:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I read that several times, but I guess I am just not smart enough. What I get is that you didn't think it was your job, essentially. That's weird, since generally on wikis people try to retain the good contributions of other people.
My desire is, naturally, to add information about the Crusades. In this case, I was adding information about the hideous atrocities enacted against Jews during the First Crusade. I don't know if you consider that "naturally a part of the subject," but I hope so.
Help me out: can I put that back in, or not?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
It is not my place to try to find somewhere for it to fit. The placement and reason for that placement originally given, was incorrect. If you feel it is has natural placement in another part of the article and matches the article scope and flow then put in those elements that you feel meet that criteria and I will examine it. But please realize the following historical information will be included:
1) The mobs that attacked the Jews had nothing to do with the Crusading armies that eventually fought in the Holy Lands
2) The Church authorities consistently tried to order them to desist, to no avail
3) The Christian townspeople tried to hide the Jews from the approaching mobs
4) When the mobs reached a fortified Christian nation, they were denied access as they were viewed as a bunch of unsavory criminals
5) They then attacked the borders of the Christian nation
6) At the moment it appeared victory was in their grasp as they were breaking through, they oddly got confused and fled, dispersing for good
7) Their sudden defeat and fleeing was viewed as divine justice upon them from God
Learn together 15:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Uh... okay, cool. You put whatever you want in there, that's fine with me. It's a wiki. I was just going to add the blurb about the pogrom in the Rhine valley, and since I think somewhere in there was assent, I will do so again.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


I sent you an email -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Email me back after you follow the instructions -- 50 star flag.png Deborah (contributions) (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Apology for my Edit on Al Franken

I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused by suggesting that you hadn't read Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them. StatsMsn 06:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Where does one find the sysop group?

I don't know where to find it. But common sense would dictate that the one who puts a disputed fact into an article is the one who needs to back it up. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 02:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

While I certainly respect that you have been given Sysop authority longer than I have, the general concensus among Sysops from when I asked the question before I was given the honor has been that flags are given for questioning only when there is a belief of error. Part of the belief is that we want all editors to actively contribute which means coming alongside and helping to build instead of pointing out to others where they need to do work. It's also best to send a private email to a fellow Sysop as a courtesy before questioning him in public. Thanks Learn together 03:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


Fair enough. On second thought, I think the tags are not needed. However, with the citations, I disagree. If you make a claim in court, the burden of proof is on you. It is the same way here, (or should be) regardless of how it has been applied up till now. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I've sent you an email to discuss this further if you wish. Thanks Learn together 03:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


It was wrong of me to reverse your block without contacting you first. I would like to apologize for that. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 15:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Tim, and no problem. I am writing you back right now. Learn together 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama Edit

You removed a section that I had added to the Presidential Campaign paragraph: "In analyzing the plans of both candidates, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Senator Obama's plan offered larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers. Alternately, McCain's plan, the center found, would result in tax cuts that "primarily benefit those with very high incomes." [1]" It was clearly referenced, plays a part in the presidential campaign, adds information to the entry, and it was from a nonpartisan center.

Can you explain your removal of it from the encyclopedic entry of Barack Obama? --Jareddr 12:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

The article isn't about a comparative analysis of what each candidate has adopted as their platform. Sticking that in there was out of place. Learn together 14:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Then can I add it to the 2008 presidential elections entry, since that is more about comparative analysis? --Jareddr 15:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
If that article is constructed in that form, then it may be an appropriate entry, but you will need to clean it up first. As it is right now, it says very little. What are the plans of the two candidates? You completely leave that out and instead address only the conclusion of a group to that which you have not even explained. Learn together 03:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


Thank you. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


Thanks for replying to me email, it has been fixed now. Not sure what was going on but I was missing the 'edit' button. It appeared back again though. Thanks though mate! AdenJ 17:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

You sent your message rather late, so it is possible editing privilages were shut down for the night. Any time you have a difficulty, we'll do our best to look into it and help where we can. Learn together 13:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Christian category

I was wondering why you removed the Christians category from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Sharpton. You may certainly (and understandably) view them as not practicing what they preach, but the Clintons are professed Christians, and Sharpton is an ordained minister. And about the schtick about Sharpton never having had a job...since when is being a minister not a job? Thank you. CraigC 09:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Considering I removed over 40 people, why did you only choose those three? Learn together 11:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Because they were the ones I added. I hadn't noticed the others. CraigC 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I was "equal opportunity". We're not looking for people who have church membership, but for those who in word and deed live the Christian message and seek to share that knowledge with others, often times even in the face of hardship. I hope this helps. Learn together 13:07, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Your call, but is that our place to judge? CraigC 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
In this case yes. The Bible talks about what it means to be a Christian. I don't particularly care for the category, but since it exists, it is important to uphold that value. This does not mean that people left off of the list are certainly not Christians, only that it does not match the bar that has been set. Learn together 03:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
If you feel that you are righteous enough to proclaim who is a true Christian and who does not meet the standards, then go for it. I personally believe only Jesus has that authority. CraigC 00:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
As do I. Peace to you. Learn together 03:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

McCain Edit?

Is the information that McCain hadn't received a divorce when he obtained his marriage certificate not factual? Do you think that it's not important that a presidential nominee was still married when he got a new marriage certificate? Or that he told a different story in his book than public records indicate? --Jareddr 14:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

You are talking about clerking errors and delays. After taking the steps to procede with a divorce, a final date when it legally takes place is indicated. That the clerks in that Arizona jurisdiction did not file it until later is not John McCain's concern. Learn together 14:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Reasonable explanation. But how about the fact that in his book he states that he had separated from his former wife before beginning to date his current wife, when according to the court petition he filed, he "cohabited" with his former wife until 1/7/80---nine months AFTER he started dating his current wife? --Jareddr 14:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I think you may be misunderstanding part of the goal of our site. Over a year ago a new user added information to the Hillary Clinton article that although they resided in the same state and were married, Bill and Hillary Clinton lived apart. That was easily verifiable and not open to interpretation. It was reverted by a Sysop because the site is not about gossip; it's about pertinent information about those aspects that make the person famous and noteworthy. So direct scandals such as Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are worthy of mention, but their current living situation serves no purpose. That new user was me, and I have tried to adhere to the standards set ever since - and still try to adhere to those standards now that I am a Sysop. John McCain has admitted to failures in his first marriage and failures at that time in his life. It's simply not a place that we go.
BTW you may also find that legal documents often have different meanings than common usage. Most of the time he didn't "cohabitate" with his wife at all because he was a senator in Washington, although he would still be considered to be cohabitating because that was his legal residence. Insinuation is not always the same as reality, and in this case it could be difficult to separate the two. Learn together 16:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I appreciate your taking the time to respond. As much as I hate to do it, I'd have to refer you to the entry on Barack Obama as a comparative piece of the two nominees. Obama's entry is filled with insinuations and speculations. I believe one of the most egregious is the insinuation/question of when he said 57 states (instead of 47 states) he was referring to the 57 Islamic states. Obviously that type of conjecture is far beyond the pale, and yet many of the sysops here have sidestepped the debate on that entry rather than stand up for a clearer and less gossip-filled encyclopedia.
If you are going to uphold the John McCain article to the standards you have tried to adhere to since starting here, I would hope that you would do the same for the Barack Obama entry I have now brought to your attention. --Jareddr 16:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
I can not bring about change in the Barak Obama article. I too am under authority and my edits were not accepted. But I do wish to make sure that the goal is not to see how much mud can be thrown and so, where I can, I try to uphold the standards that I have been told we adhere to. So please try to make the articles that you edit as professional as possible. Learn together 19:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
*Thumbs up* --Jareddr 19:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
Hi! I appreciated your edit of John McCain and personally feel that it needs much more work. I take special offense to individuals who smear and place ridiculous facts on this website, and feel that Conservapedia is more moral than that. Please add further information as you discover if the article is ever going to appear on the Main Page, it must be informative an article as possible. --CTrooper 18:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

New McCain Edit

I must admit I tend to agree with you about the removal of the passages you did. However you should be aware there was a debate on this in the past few days and a consensus was reached to remove some, and leave some. I wonder if perhaps you should refer to that consensus first.--DamianJohn 12:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. I'll comment on the talk page now. Learn together 12:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)


Just browsing through the Obama talk page it seems that there is no longer any issue about his place of birth. How would one go about getting that changed as it looks ridiculous to have it say "allegedly born". --DamianJohn 18:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

If the page is locked, then you'll have to leave a request on the talk page or find a sysop who will make the change for you. I've chosen not to get involved in that article. Learn together 12:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Re: Zogby Poll

LT, I took out the Zogby poll because for the past few weeks we have been doing the five most recent polls. When a newer poll comes in, we drop the oldest. Hence I dropped the Zogby poll which finished on 8/1 by replacing it with a poll completed on 8/4. --Jareddr 10:57, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

I've been doing it more by date range, and, quite frankly, more people would be interested in what Zogby reports than in organizations not usually known for polling or at least not very recognizable.
I've been reporting results without "leaners". Do you wish to report leaners? It's ok if you think that's a better indication of polling numbers. I would just like us to be consistent. Learn together 11:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
You're right on leaners. On Real Clear Politics, they report the Rasmussen # with leaners, and I always forget to click the link for the actual results. That was just a slip of the brain. As far as the Zogby poll, I've been trying to stick with the 5 most recent polls, otherwise we could end up just adding and adding and having a table with 18 polls in it. I wanted to use the most recent ending date polls because that reflects the most recent trends in the campaign. If you want to keep the Zogby poll in there to make it 6, so be it, but it'll probably get knocked out in a day or two since the most recent polls now go through the 4th and 5th. --Jareddr 11:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)


I added the quote as a controversy because it was big enough for him to issue an apology for it afterwards. He was speaking about gay marriage and had stated he never saw a man he would want to marry, and then went on to the aforementioned remarks. It was well-known enough to make it to the newspapers and, again, forced him to apologize. Seems like it was a controversial statement at the time he made it. The original section was termed "Quotes" but I didn't want it to appear as quote-mining so I changed it to controversy.--Jareddr 16:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

I would see it as more of a controversy if he held to that view. Similar to talk show hosts, ministers such as Swaggart preach for several hours every week of every year. Things are going to come up that offend some people. I have found, on a whole, that ministers apologize more readily than most other people; that they do so should not be held against them. Learn together 19:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Block of RuralHall

Hi, was wondering why you blocked this user? Contributions seem sourced and there's no warnings/discussion on their talk page suggesting they are breaking any commandments or anything. DefenderofTrue 16:49, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

When a user makes a change to an article to refer to the "cult of Christianity", he's basically asking for his walking papers. Other places may find that to be cute; we don't. Learn together 19:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I can't see that in his contributions, do you have a diff? DefenderofTrue 15:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Wrong person. RuralHall was removed for ignoring discussion on talk page of what information was inappropriate and why and adding what he wished to anyway. When he was reverted, he added it again. Since he had no positive contributions to the site, he was removed for good. Learn together 12:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Moving of an article

Hello there, I'd like to request your help; the David Milliband article (British foreign secretary) is misspelt and should be at David Miliband (as noted within the article and the source therein), however I don't seem to have the rights to move an article. I'm not sure if it's because of the age of my account or whether this operation is restricted to sysops, so I thought it wiser to approach someone who obviously has the community's respect. Thanks for the time. ChrisSmith 18:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to request a few moves. I'm sorry if this the wrong place to ask. These images should be moved to the appropriate "Category:Middle-earth", as they are all scattered over the place: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. And these articles should be under proper names and spellings: Fredegar Bolger, Elf (Middle-earth), Dwarf (Middle-earth), Théoden. It would be nice if you could do this, if it isn't a bother. ~ Tolkiendil 17:52, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Image uploads

Hello again, thanks for moving the article to the correct title per my request, I now have another query. I created the article European Parliament, and have found some images on wikimedia commons which would illustrate the article quite well. I'm not really sure about the image policy on Conservapedia, and the upload tool is restricted to sysops anyway, so I was wondering if you could help out. The image is located here, and licensed under the GFDL, I'm not sure if that's compatible with this site or not. There are more images here. Thanks for taking the time. ChrisSmith 21:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

As I am not sure what is common usage myself, I usually defer to other Sysops when it comes to the proper implementation of pictures. Learn together 12:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, no probs, cheers! ChrisSmith 13:39, 22 August 2008 (EDT)


Hi I reverted Saints listed Catholicism. I had a question regarding categories and thought you may be able to help. Under Saints, the structure is alphabetized but the names do not always match, e.g. Siant John of God, technically should be under (J) , by current sort it is under (S) and if I am correct- sort is established by last name or last word. Is there a better way to organize? Template structure flaw? -- 50 star flag.png jp 12:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for taking care of this. The DefaultSort function allows sorting in whatever form is desired. Look at Saint Andrew near the bottom as an example. For Saints sorting should generally be done by first name, as many are known and referenced that way. Learn together 14:03, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Could you please explain this edit?

In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.

Which episode? What aliens? Jinxmchue 10:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately that's all I remember. It was a 'cloud' type area of space that they entered and then couldn't get out of. The alien materialized in the air on their ship and looked non-human. It had no legs or anything touching the ground. He said his species wished to study all forms of death and dying and then he killed one of the crew on the bridge. He said that to finish his experiments would take a little more than half of Picard's crew. It was a phony Ryker and Troi who were talking to him in his quarters when he made his statement. Learn together 12:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
See this page which I've added to the Star Trek page. Marge 12:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for including that. Learn together 12:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, got it. Unfortunately, Picard doesn't say anything about God in that scene, though he obviously is open-minded about there being something more than this life. See here. Jinxmchue 15:15, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Imagining -> roleplaying

Ah ha! That's the word I was looking for! (My initial thought was "simulating", but I knew that wasn't right!) HelpJazz 13:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain's education

I noticed you reverted my edit about McCain's lack of performance at the Naval Academy. I've reinserted the source for the claim, which I forgot to put in before your reversion. I hope this helps. --DrHubertJNugz 14:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

This parodist has been dealt with. Bugler 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
You do know what a parodist is, right? How can he be a conservative parodist if he is inserting information that is harmful to a conservative? HelpJazz 14:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Google the name. A false name calculated to raise sniggering hilarity among his adolescent Liberal chums, and obviously here solely to cause trouble. My nostrils scent parodist, Jazz, they scent vandal and troublemaker, doubtless spawned in the cesspit. Bugler 14:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
A false name, like "trumpeter", you know, "one who plays the trumpet"? HelpJazz 14:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT) (Um and Googling "Dr Hubert J Nugz" doesn't come up with anything. So try a little harder or you are going to start to look like a parodist.)
Do you not know how to use Google? It came up with 2 hits to a parody site. You really need to try harder. Bugler 14:57, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Hint: drop the Dr. I doubt it comes from any reputable academic institution. Bugler 14:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Give me links then. Everything's so obvious to you, why not just point it out instead of saying it's so obvious? I see two links to The Site That Must Not Be Named (which is not a parody site, unless you are trying to suggest something), and both of those links don't actually work, so there's no way to verify that they aren't just pointing back at this Dr. And you still haven't explained why you are blocking people who have zero edits and no obvious harmful intent. HelpJazz 15:04, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Heaven help us. You would let Osama bin Laden post on this site unless he questioned some dinosaur theory or other. Get real. We are surrounded by enemies: sniggering adolescent Liberals, assorted leftist scum and atheists who seek to destroy this project. They fear what it may achieve. Let them fear us. Bugler 15:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

In other words, when again asked a direct question, you make some assertion about me and dodge the question. I'm seeing a pattern here. HelpJazz 15:22, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
None so blind as those that will not see, HJ. Bugler 15:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I have deleted the link as on closer inspection it is anti-CP and non-family-friendly. Bugler 15:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Please don't call me HJ. I followed your link and magically found the exact same thing as when I did the search myself: a whole lot of nothing. Here's the first page: some guy's blog that nobody appears to read (and isn't parody), a myspace page for a hip-hop band, a research paper, and several other no-name links. You know, if you actually had any real proof, this could have been taken care of almost an hour ago by just telling me what it is. HelpJazz 15:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, you can call me B if you want. It helps a friendly atmosphere, I feel. If you found that blog wholesome and helpful thenm I pity you. I would rather give an innocent youth or maiden a phial of prussic acid than let him or her read that filth. And consequently the good doctor is not a fit or proper person to practice his moral perversions on this site. End of discussion. Bugler 15:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Is it parody, or is it unwholesome? Because it looks to me like you blocked someone for being mentioned all of twice on a rarely-read blog (judging by the amount of comments) which has a lot of articles about golf, law school, and poetry. It is, granted, often peppered with swears and material not appropriate for this website, but that's just it, it's not on this website, and you really have no basis for blocking DrHubertJNugz, and what evidence you did give is clearly false. HelpJazz 16:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Missed posts

You appear to have missed my posts on Talk:National Center for Science Education and Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Your response would be appreciated at your earliest convenience. --Horace42 21:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the unblock

I appreciate the opportunity to keep contributing. --DinsdaleP 11:33, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

...and here's the time-sensitive project I mentioned: Essay: Conservapedia Questions for the 2008 Presidential Candidates. I'm waiting to see if Aschlafly approves of the concept. --DinsdaleP 21:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)


If Hollywood Values has not been nominated to be featured, could you do so? JY23 18:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin Talk Page Edits

I've left the article alone regarding rape kits, and will not change your edits to my update with details on the troopergate votes. Why though, was it necessary to pull my closing comment on the Talk page as well? I wasn't rude or insulting, and I provided evidence to back up the point I made. Are these statements of fact made with the supporting evidence so inappropriate that they had to be erased from the page instead of being responded to in kind?

That was my final say on the Palin Talk page for the rape-kit matter, and since I have the truth on my side I'm okay with leaving your deletion of it intact - you can deny the facts but it doesn't make them any less true. I've moved on to other constructive tasks here like the candidate-questions project, so please don't block me again over this. I'm letting this one go. --DinsdaleP 12:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Your numbers make that small town the rape capital of the world. It would appear there was more there than your site is reporting. For issues such as this I dig deeper and want to know more. Did any insurance companies refuse to pay? Was anyone who reported they were assaulted actually billed? I'd imagine your site would provide that information if they had anything that was damaging to Palin. As it stands right now, the reasons and what occurred are more tied together by innuendo.
And, as you know by our private conversation, you requested I allow your talk page entries to stay - but never said anything about continuing to post more. I don't like when someone stretches to get in one last shot - and I think you understand that. Learn together 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)


Hi LT, what exactly does a siteadmin do? I'm having some, uh, problems. HelpJazz 17:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

So am I, but I'm not running to teacher like a whining little coward. Nor am I a saboteur from a site overtly determined on the destruction of Conservapedia. Sorry, HJ (sob sob) - or is that Jazzman?. Bugler 17:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
To be fair, Bugler also thinks he's having a problem so it's not fair of me to say that I'm the only one. I apologize again. Though I don't think asking a third party for mediation constitutes "running to teacher". HelpJazz 17:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Fairly said. I apologise for my intemperate rematrks. Bugler 17:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen: As much as we can, we prefer to have those who have been given rights and privileges on this site, and both of you have, to solve differences between yourselves. We are part of a greater community and that means an ability to work together among our valued editors. We can get involved if there truly is no ability to find common respect and acceptance, but that is not the preferred method if it can be avoided. Learn together 17:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Category Religion

Revert category complete. Any possibility you will join Wikiproject: Religion? This project needs direction. -- 50 star flag.png jp 14:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The project is way too large and unwiedly to work in its current form. Even if it had been a Wikiproject: Bible it would have been a huge undertaking, but by massing every article that even touches upon religion, it's more of an exercise in lumping categories than a project that could actually work. I'm afraid there is little I could add or do. Learn together 12:02, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Erasing threads of inquiry on Talk|Palin

I'm not going to go back and forth on the Palin page anymore, but I have to ask you for an honest answer to this: You seem intent on erasing any discussion about the Palin rape-kit issue and try to redirect the conversation to what you perceive as press bias, instead of actually addressing the questions and facts presented. If you are so insistent that this story is not true, then why not take up the challenge of rebutting the evidence presented with evidence of your own? When you just erase things you don't agree with, it's an endorsement of them being true - an uncomfortable, inappropriate truth to you, but still the truth as long as you don't refute it openly and credibly. This isn't personal, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this instead of dismissing or erasing it. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 18:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

See answer above under the previous time you asked me. You have made me regret that I believed in your initial email correspondence. I will not be fooled again. In the future, your block stands for full duration. Learn together 02:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Why are you treating me like I'm some kind of subversive out to harm this project, or a deceiver taking advantage of your goodwill? We had a back-and-forth over my edits on the Palin page (regarding a subject I won't even mention again with you), and the key point you and Jpatt kept making is that the stories were smears without proof. So I did the responsible thing, and found the proof to back up the point and show it was the truth. At that point my edits were called "inappropriate" - not untruthful, just inappropriate, and I was blocked for reinserting them. When I asked you to remove my block so I could do other constructive things here, I promised to leave the article alone, and asked you to preserve the discussion. You kept your word, and I thanked you publicly for it. I kept my word, creating a project here you commended, and added a last post to the Palin Talk page to achieve closure. --DinsdaleP
A) Do not try to label my concerns into what you wished they were. I did not just say there was no proof and that's why we can't insert it. Do not act otherwise.
B) I already stated above that your choice to continue to write on the talk page on the subject was inappropriate in view of your email request. That you have chosen to ignore it above while bringing it up here again is also unfortunate. Learn together 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
...When you removed that you responded as if I had misled you, and I apologize if that's the case. I had asked you to leave the talk thread intact wit the intent of closing it - the last point was you asking for proof because you asserted there was none, and my last edit was to respond with the proof you asked for. That's why others added their comments, which have been deleted as well. --DinsdaleP
If you had every intention of continuing the talk page discussion then you should have stated it as such. By asking me to please just keep what you had put, you implicitly implied otherwise. Your efforts to continue were, of course, removed as well as any reference to them. Learn together 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
Okay, enough of the recap. I just wanted to point out that I'm a respectful and professional contributor here, even when people don't like what I'm contributing. I didn't lie or mislead you when I asked to have my block lifted, and constructive things you approve of have happened because I've been back here. I always follow the CP commandment to contribute true and verifiable edits, and simply ask that they be responded to in kind, instead of being erased when they can't. --DinsdaleP
Can't? I had already responded with my thoughts above before you wrote this - which you have conveniently ignored. And that is fine as long as you don't try to open a new thread as if I never put my response - like you are doing here. Learn together 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I've been blocked a dozen times for being true to my convictions, --DinsdaleP
Actually, I think other reasons have been given. Learn together 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
... and I think the only reason I'm allowed to remain here is that I'm still recognized as a constructive editor who honestly tries to make this project better.
If you disagree, then feel free to restore my block for as many days left as I had on the original. The only request I'd have is that you pick up and guide the "Questions for the Candidates" project I set up while I'm blocked. That's a worthwhile project, and time-sensitive. Thanks. --DinsdaleP 09:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I've said my piece, you've said your piece, and I'm letting it go - time to move on. --DinsdaleP 16:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain talkpage

I feel you should at the least, leave Aschlafly comments to JonPdh since it was a response posted today. Also, I feel IanG doesn't deserve to be here at CP for his snide reply comments. -- 50 star flag.png jp 11:47, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

JonPdh seemed to just like rehashing things that already had answers, albeit with a sprinkling of negative insinuations along the way. It served no useful purpose. If he had asked for clarifications at first then that could have been valid, but we don't need to give an audience to a 'new' user who likes to force in his view against previous decisions. Learn together 11:57, 3 October 2008 (EDT)


While I was on my, um, sabbatical, I noticed this in the block log:

  • 13:19, 3 October 2008 Learn together (Talk | contribs | block) blocked JonPdh (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye Bye) (unblock)

What does the "e-mail blocked" part mean? Is that something only a sysop can do? I've started noticing that recently and it's got my curiosity piqued. HelpJazz 13:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

It's the bottom of the 3 boxes to check when you block someone. I am assuming you have that option as well, but I don't know. Blocking email is usually only used in the case of overt vandalism or users who only seek to disrupt. For anyone else, email correspondance is left open in case they wish to discuss their block and how to become positive contributors to the project. Learn together 17:37, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
"Ordinary" editors with block rights don't appear to have this option. BrianCo 17:57, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I figured it was something like that; I was just curious. And to paraphrase what Brian said, we peons don't have a third option :) HelpJazz 18:03, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I noticed this third checkbox in the block dialog about a month ago, but it quickly disappeared after less than a week, so maybe it was a new feature introduced with a wiki upgrade that then had to be calibrated. In any case, I'm in the same boat with HelpJazz and BrianCo in that I don't have it anymore. -Foxtrot 18:54, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
I believe that it was a new feature with the software upgrade, but I still have it, so it does seem as if it's only available to sysops, even if it was temporarily available to all for a short while. Philip J. Rayment 02:41, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Roman Catholicism

When you've a moment, please take a look at my comments (and those of Jpatt) on the talkm page re. Controversy. I don't want to do anything precipitously but do feel very strongly about this issue and the unfairness of it. Thanks, Bugler 17:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Scottish religious history

my dear fellow conservative, i was a bit unhappy to find my addition to the page in question modified in the way it has been, i have 'counter-repaired' it if you dont mind.

yours merrily, PhilipV

I'm not sure I understand your concern. The information you presented was incorrect and was adjusted. You have since added an edit that is correct. Good Learn together 17:13, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Blocks needed

Please block parodists user:City and user:Ihateobama.--CPalmer 11:44, 5 November 2008 (EST)

There should be some kind of a rank that allows something on the level of a citizen's arrest here... let regular users with no other special privileges have blocking rights on accounts that have been active for say... at most 20 minutes, just to get rid of the annoying vandals Mikek 11:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)
If that's possible, I second it - it's an excellent idea.--CPalmer 11:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Great catch

Superb catch on User:Virginian. Well done!--Aschlafly 23:28, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Andy ;-) Learn together 23:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Favour Please, Learn together

This is embarrassing. Could you change two subject headings for me please - both misspellings that got under my radar....

Cheers AlanE 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks!AlanE 17:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)

How Dare You

How dare you delete my comment on another user's talk page? That's suppression of free thought, not to mention interception of a message intended for a specific user. If you have an issue with my opinion, I'd me more than happy to discuss it on my own talk page, but please don't go out deleting comments that you don't agree with. It's very offensive and just plain wrong. -Ilikecake 23:39, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I believe you can put what you wish on your talk page as long as you don't slander anyone else. The idea that you can rant on the page of a user who is no longer here and expect your rant to stay is odd to say the least and has been dealt with accordingly. Learn together 02:40, 15 November 2008 (EST)

How Dare You! (II)

  • Goodness! So long this page has gone without archiving! I say HOW DARE YOU!  :p

--₮K/Talk 02:16, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It's good to hear from you my friend. Yes, I guess I haven't archived in a while. ;-) Learn together 02:40, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Messianic Judaism

Sorry about the edit conflict. Did I delete much?

Maybe we should discuss on the talk page? --Ed Poor Talk 15:54, 22 November 2008 (EST)

No problem Ed. It won't be the first time we've tripped over each other. ;-) Learn together 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I stopped editing there, so you can fix up what I trashed. I seem to recall two really good edits of yours. Shall I point them out? --Ed Poor Talk 16:32, 22 November 2008 (EST)
If I miss them, put them back in. ;-) Learn together 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)


Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:17, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Robert Bolling article?


I was encouraged by Rob Smith (RobS) sometime ago to add articles that I had written at other sites to this one. I don't know if Rob is still editing here. Anyway, I have been doing so slowly. A few of my articles are being selected for deletion. The Robert Bolling article had this posting, "This article has been proposed for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate according to The Conservapedia Commandments." Really? The article is appropriate? It is sarcastic mockery? Or it is vandalism? This is beginning to sound like the garbage I was facing at Wikipedia! This editor says he is a historian and he is also listing two other articles of mine for deletion John Allen Borgman and Abel Prescott who is just as important historically as William Dawes but because some historian or poet through the years didn't mention him in his work, he has been almost forgotten. This does not make the person any less significant or encyclopedic. What am I to do to argue my points or should I just not bother? Dwain 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Star Trek

The idea of categories is to have as many as needed to improve search ability. While "Star Trek" might well be a category unto itself, it should be included under all media, Television, Movies and Books/Literature, since its franchise has spread to all of those. --₮K/Talk! 16:33, 30 December 2008 (EST)

StarTrek yes my friend, but not Sulu ;-) The theory with categories is to only put the article in categories where they are prominent or well known. We want to avoid the clutter of WP. Of course you probably remember this Terry; you were one of the people who put it together. ;-) Learn together 17:05, 30 December 2008 (EST)
Ha Ha! That will teach me to multi-task, Bill! I thought I was looking at the Star Trek page! --₮K/Talk! 17:33, 30 December 2008 (EST)
It happens to the best of us Terry. We've all got to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes. ;-) Learn together 19:11, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Happy New Year!

Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!--Oprah Winfrey

--₮K/Talk! 23:30, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Have a Happy New Year my friend. May the rest of your year go as well as this one has started. ;-) Learn together 03:49, 1 January 2009 (EST)

UFC Articles

Just wanted to say thanks for all your help on those, and I was just wondering if you would help me on the latest string of articles to be created (that is, those redlinks in the Ultimate Fighter article). JY23 18:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)
  1. Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama