User talk:Learn together

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Learn together (Talk | contribs) at 01:32, 10 June 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


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




How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--Tash 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) Learn together 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--Tash 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our team page. Thanks, --Tash 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)


Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at . shows how it works. SkipJohnson 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. Learn together 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) Learn together 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Contest Points

Great job raking up points yesterday!! I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess). Keep up the good work!--Tash 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

I've created a page (User:Learn together/Contest2) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--Tash 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Urgent Matter...

Please contact me if you are around.... --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Sanford Ransdell Article

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. Dwain 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. Rob Smith 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. Learn together 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) HelpJazz 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. Learn together 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Counting Contest Points

If you could total your contest points for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--Tash 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) (here's a link to the points guide)

Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) Learn together 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --BethTalk2ME 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) Learn together 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--BethTalk2ME 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) Learn together 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that Justice Joseph Story is after 12:00.--BethTalk2ME 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. Learn together 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--Tash 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) Learn together 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Bush National Guard

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. Maestro 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. Learn together 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the BIG LIE. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was fired allowed early retirement. --şŷŝôρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

My friend

Where are you? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) Learn together 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)


Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the newest contest. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--IDuan 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.
Again, thank you Learn together 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Nice to have you IN. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. Learn together 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Ready? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Where is the list of your points? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)
I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)


Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--IDuan00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: Supply Siders  --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Team page: Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders --IDuan 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Nice assist

[1] --Ed Poor Talk 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) Learn together 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Why is Dewey blocked? Luke

He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. Learn together 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) HelpJazz 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) Learn together 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) HelpJazz 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for cleaning up my edits

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-MexMax 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example Philip_Pendleton_Barbour. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. Learn together 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)


Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! DanH 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. Learn together 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

  • Invertebrates?
I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) Learn together 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)


Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --~BCSTalk2ME 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--~BCSTalk2ME 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 Learn together 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)
OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --~BCSTalk2ME 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)


Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? Rob Smith 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) Learn together 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)
For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. Rob Smith 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)
  • So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

block and delete needed

Just look at the recent changes. Bohdan 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)

That should earn you a few points! Bohdan 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) Learn together 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

removal of copy righted material

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright. hope you don't mind.--JBuscombe 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) Learn together 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)


Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

His Dark Materials

Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited His Dark Materials. As you can see on my user page, JK899, working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. JK899 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. JK899 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Learntogether, I understand you recently undid my edits to The Golden Compass. I'm not really sure why though, since my changes simply improved the flow of the passage and added additional information (such as the comparisons to Paradise Lost and its alternate title in NZ and the UK). Please feel free to discuss it with me further on the talk page. :D Underscoreb 19:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Learntogether, I'm acting in good faith here and yet you're persisting in reverting my edits without comment. Please consider Philip's objective assessment and, in the words of Will Wheaton, "don't be a d***". :D Underscoreb 17:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes there are instances where compromise as you wish it is not possible. We are both aware of Pullman's position and we come at it from opposite perspectives in life -- fair enough. But knowing why he wrote the books he did and what he was trying to get across, this site will not allow any watering down or political correctness to cover that up. Other information such as the different name in other continents is fine, but don't try to rewrite the story. Learn together 17:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
To be honest, I'm not sure you are fully aware of Pullman's position :D While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. If you've ever read his "Republic of Heaven" speech, he talks about how he is anti-religion because of the hierarchies and power politics it creates.
"We're used to the kingdom of heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of heaven instead of the kingdom of heaven. The king is dead. That's to say I believe that the king is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver. And, furthermore, we need it in this world where we do exist-- not elsewhere, because there ain't no elsewhere."

I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. Underscoreb 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)


Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. Learn together 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 13:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

Featured articles

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Any proposal to start? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Good one! Thank you. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Coin collecting

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta that category --Ed Poor Talk 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Response appreciated

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. PleaseDeleteTempUser 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)


I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. SSchultz 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)


...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, Aziraphale 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the heads up

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. Learn together 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)


...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. HelpJazz 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. Learn together 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)


I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy was out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. Feebasfactor 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. Learn together 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Battle of Aegospotami/Delium?

Seeing as how Battle of Aegospotami was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --JakeC 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. Learn together 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --JakeC 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)
You're already helping. ;-) Learn together 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Philosophy categories

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. JFPerry 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)


Hey, thanks for reworking Christian Domestic Discipline! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --JakeC 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)


Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming contest. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--IDuan 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. Learn together 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

New articles?

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

  • You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.

Erm, those had been redirects. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --Jenkins 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)


Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like User:Learn together/Contest4.--IDuan 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Double Redirect

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review this list before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I think you get a point Ed. ;-) Learn together 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Your Article

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to Drunk - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--IDuan 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) Learn together 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you

For addressing this. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. Jinxmchue 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. Learn together 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)
Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. Jinxmchue 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

MSM Redirect

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --Jdellaro 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to User talk:Philip J. Rayment and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. Learn together 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)


You have some :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)


Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--IDuan 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--IDuan 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)
I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks Learn together 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)
BTW, good job with your own work and editing. Learn together 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--IDuan 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. Learn together 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

ID book

Intelligent Design (book) is the proper name, not Intelligent Design (Book), as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

It sound good, thanks Learn together 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Contest 4

Congratulations! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Great Job LT!--IDuan 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. BrianCo 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from Freedom. Very well done, again!!!--Aschlafly 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) Learn together 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

What is your secret to win every contest?
--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) Learn together 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Ban for username needed

PastafarianBeliver. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) Jinxmchue 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. Learn together 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)
BethanyS banned him already. Jinxmchue 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)


It's starting to look like User:Barikada didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. this edit. Jinxmchue 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)

My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... Barikada 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. Learn together 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm pretty sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. Barikada 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)


Click on the link to vote in my poll. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote for President 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Contest 5

Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the draft of the point system for contest 5 has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--IDuan 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--IDuan 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)
I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. Learn together 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)


Nice to see you in action again. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) Learn together 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Trial Contest

Hey Learn together, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here.--IDuan 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Gospel of Thomas

Please review this edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. Learn together 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Heads of government

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA World Factbook defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [2] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dadsnagem2 (talk)


From no where in the middle of a journey, --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Easton's Bible Dictionary

Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--Kuli 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. Learn together 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--Kuli 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--Kuli 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


Thank you so much for you help! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) Learn together 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)


Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. HelpJazz 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)


Why did you revert my edit to deer? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. Learn together 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). HelpJazz 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Would this source be better [3]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [4] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people world-wide [5], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. BlinkadyblinkRAGE 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
This is a serious site, and, come on. DanH 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Sons of Jacob

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to list Jacob's 14 sons in the Jacob article at any point in time? --Ed Poor Talk 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. Learn together 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. Learn together 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther, Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?BertSchlossberg 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


Satan has been unprotected. DanH 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)


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. [6]. 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![7] 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)