Difference between revisions of "User talk:RobSmith"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(re: Detente: new section)
(re: Detente)
Line 196: Line 196:
I am glad we are now in a period of detente.  
I am glad we are now in a period of detente.  
Down the pike when I have more time at my disposal and should you remain an active editor, I will once again recommend you get your admin status back. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:58, 23 May 2016 (EDT)
Down the pike when I have more time at my disposal and should you remain an active editor, I will once again recommend you get your admin status back.
I have already changed Karajou's opinion so now he is in favor of it. And you are also closer down the field in terms of getting Andy to agree. Andy is a conservative lawyer and they tend to be a cautious lot, but I believe that if you are persistent that this will ultimately win the day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:03, 23 May 2016 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:03, 23 May 2016

Useful links


Hello, RobSmith, 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, RobSmith!

quick note

The Conservapedia article on the Soviet Union ranks pretty well at the the search engines of Google, Yahoo and Bing. I spruced up the Soviet Union article via some pictures and now it ranks #5 at Google for the search term Soviet Union as can be seen HERE

Bottom line: Your Soviet Union and communism related material plus any future material you create in that genre will now have a bigger audience.

Lastly, I think it is best if we put aside our past differences and work more cooperatively in the future. Best wishes on your future editing. Conservative 16:45, 15 November 2011 (EST)


Nice to see you back--CamilleT 19:27, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Thanks! Rob Smith 15:59, 21 November 2011 (EST)

So, are you trying to whitewash Gingrich and his personal history? He's an adulterer several times over. --SharonW 18:58, 22 January 2012 (EST) Edited to add - every bit of what I added to the article was referenced. I thought we didn't censor truth? --SharonW 18:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)

No. Information needs to carefully vetted. There's a lot of lies and misinformation out there about Newt, his first wife being served with divorce papers on her deathbed being for instance. This material needs to be handles carefully. Rob Smith 19:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I didn't add anything to the article about "deathbed" papers. However you deleted everything - looks like a whitewash to me. --SharonW 19:05, 22 January 2012 (EST)
In fact - you were the one to add something in about the deathbed papers. SharonW 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
You're right -- and the message is proceed with caution. For decades now liberals and MSM have published blatant lies about Gingrich. You need to show credentials your intentions are not the same. Rob Smith 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I need to show credentials? What kind of credentials are you looking for, Rob? --SharonW 19:18, 22 January 2012 (EST)
That you're not a God-hating commie out to destroy Newt Gingrich. Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Gingrich did that pretty well on his own, as far as I'm concerned. Everyone has hot buttons - Andy's is abortion, yours is communism, mine is adultery. Gingrich is a creep, and what he does in his personal life tells me a lot about him. --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Also, quick question - why is it important to add that the Clintons had an "open" marriage but not to add that Gingrich had at least 2 affairs, and forced his first ex-wife to appeal to the courts for money in order to support their two children? Both are very telling about the individuals. --SharonW 19:24, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Should we include allegations Hilary is a lesbian? her formal and public denial during the 2008 Presidential contest doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. Especially given the Clinton's record in matters of sex. Where should we draw the line? Rob Smith 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Court records aren't allegations, Rob, they're public records. Mrs. Gingrich filed for support because Gingrich didn't pay. What does that tell you about him? --SharonW 19:35, 22 January 2012 (EST)
I don't know, that she's vindictive? that she and her lawyer tried to embarrass and blackmail Gingrich? What do Gingric's daughters, for whom the support is intended, say about it now? Rob Smith 19:45, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Oh, good one, Rob. The soon-to-be-ex-wife is vindictive when her bills were two to three months past due because Gingrich didn't pay any support. What did the judge think - oh, wait, he agreed with her. So I can only think you approve of adultery. --SharonW 19:49, 22 January 2012 (EST)


No more edit-warring. Please provide evidence that what has been added is false before removing it. Thank you, babe. --SharonW 22:14, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Rugby World Cup comparison to Superbowl

User:ScottDG informed me that, according to you, a comparison to the Superbowl is important for the Rugby World Cup page. I think it's inaccurate and slightly misleading, but I'm unaware of the reasoning as to why it is important. Here's the discussion. Cheers.


I uploaded the poser pic at Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests --Jpatt 23:10, 27 January 2012 (EST)


Working hard? --Joaquín Martínez 19:12, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Yes. Thank you. Good to hear from you. Rob Smith 19:18, 28 January 2012 (EST)


Your gratuitous insulting behaviour might be tolerated on other sites, but lets keep the conversations civil here. You do not see me going around insulting your country do you? --DamianJohn 20:49, 28 January 2012 (EST)

Third World is not an insult. Rob Smith 16:19, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Yes it is. Don't get cute Rob. Can't you go about editing an encyclopaedia without hurling insults at everyone? Or is that beyond your capabilities? --DamianJohn 18:12, 29 January 2012 (EST)
If the term "Third World" is a pejorative, blame the United Nations, not me. Rob Smith 19:21, 29 January 2012 (EST)
No. I blame you Rob, because the word no longer has the meaning it used to have. Also, you could not say with a straight face that you were using the word in the anachronistic sense. In any case, even under the older sense of the word, New Zealand was a first world country. Every post you make you look more and more foolish. --DamianJohn 19:33, 29 January 2012 (EST)
New Zealand is a Superpower? don't think so; New Zealand's not even a member of NATO or the European Union. New Zealand may be among the developed nations, which could earn it Second World status, dependent upon the level of its foreign debt and trade surplus/ deficit. But even if it has a fairly decent living standard by world standards, adjustment must be made for its military and defense contributions to maintaining a stable international trading system. And if it spends .01% as Japan does of it's national income on defense, leaving American taxpayers to pick up the slack (and thus, suffer a lower standard of living) no way does New Zealand under any circumstances equal First World superpower status of the US. Rob Smith 19:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)
I know of no person, except you, who claims that first world means superpower. Even your cite doesn't argue for this. In fact your cite explicitly calls NZ a first world country. Now if you want to make up a definition for a term, at least have the decency to let everyone know that. I don't know if you are just trolling, or you seriously believe what you are saying, either way, I suggest you go have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. I'm done with you. --DamianJohn 20:15, 29 January 2012 (EST)
Congratulations, welcome to the First World. You'll see, it's no big deal. Rob Smith 20:32, 29 January 2012 (EST)

I hear your country got the beginnings of a health-care system, I see America is rapidly approaching first-world status :), glad you could join us. Cmurphynz 05:37, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Expansion of the universe

Yes, Rob, if you look at a star today, and then 500 years from now, you will notice a difference in distance of 500*rate of yearly expansion. RachelW 20:59, 30 January 2012 (EST)

The rate of expansion is about 73 km/s/Mpc. What that means is that for every megaparsec you are in distance from a point, you will be moving 73 km/s away from that point due to the expansion of the universe. So, 1 megaparsec away means you are moving 73 km/s, 2 megaparsecs away and its 146 km/s, and so on. For your reference, a megaparsec is about 3,261,636 light years, or 20 billion billion miles. This is why we don't really notice the expansion of the universe without high powered telescopes. Its a very small rate of expansion relative to the sizes involved. Hope this helps. RachelW 21:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It does. So the gravitationally bound objects likewise are moving with the expansion at the same rate? Is matter in the universe likewise expanding? Not to sound absurd, but am I actually becoming more obese as the universe expands? Rob Smith 22:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

It is not the matter itself, expanding, but the space between it. Think about a lump of bread dough with raisins in it, as it rises in the oven. The raisins don't expand themselves, but if you stand on a raisin and look at the other raisins, you'll see them moving away from you, and the farther away they are, the faster they move.

The thing is, any two objects close enough to be bound gravitationally are not likely to be far enough away for the expansion to matter at all. Although, actually, since the rate of expansion is increasing, some scientists believe that in many many many billions of years in the future, the expansion may rip apart every atom in the universe. It's called the "Big Rip" theory, and yes, it is a little kooky. RachelW 22:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Oh, and as to the question of scale: You basically have to look at objects in other galaxies for the expansion to become noticeable. I won't see any expansion looking at stars in the Milky Way galaxy, but I will if I look at a star in a galaxy much farther away. And actually, the galaxy closest to us, Andromeda, is being drawn into our galaxy by gravity and so is not rushing away from us like most other galaxies are. RachelW 22:19, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Thank you. So I got it wrong, the theory states expansion is accelerating, not decreasing. Question: Will an observable object 13 billion lights year away be 13 + y billion lights years away in y billion years? Rob Smith 23:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Well, as we said before, for every 3.2 billion light years away you are, the speed increases by 73 km/s, or 45 miles per second. So, for an object 13 billion light years away, it will be traveling at about 180 miles per second relative to the earth, or 5.7 billion miles per year. So, in say, 1 billion years, that object will have traveled approximately 5.7 billion billion miles, or 970,000 light years, a change in distance of much less than one percent. RachelW 23:34, 30 January 2012 (EST)
Not quite. There's a bit of a compound interest effect involved. Every second another 73.8km gets added to the distance, and that's expanding as well. Over a few billion years that can add some real distance. --GeorgeLi 00:27, 31 January 2012 (EST)
The distance equation wouldn't be exactly linear, of course, but the change in distance really is so small that you can treat the speed as constant and it makes a very good approximation. RachelW 10:23, 31 January 2012 (EST)

Good work on Paul

I am very much liking what you are saying about St Paul. Very well put. Paul saw the light and stopped being a rule-obsessed Pharisee, yet people today try to turn him back into one. We shouldn't let them!--CPalmer 09:58, 23 February 2012 (EST)

That's right; User:Conservative is preaching a Gospel which basically says, "Ye must be circumcised and not be obese." Rob Smith 14:24, 23 February 2012 (EST)

You are unblocked

RobSmith, you are unblocked.

How about creating this project which could be featured on the main page: Conservapedia:Encyclopedia on Communism.

If you wanted and if this helps, this could serve as a template with any modifications you think are necessary: Conservapedia:Encyclopedia of Conservatism. Conservative 06:34, 25 May 2015 (EDT)

Welcome back!

So you were editing as "OscarO" nearly the whole time that you were blocked (all but 5 months)? Impressive. And it says something about the admins' ability to accurately identify sock accounts.

Anyway, you created an enormous amount of Venona material over at Ameriwiki. (Remember that?) There were approximately 3.847 gajillion articles, which I combined into one huge one because I was tired of seeing one of them come up every time I hit "random page". I assume you still have that material. If you don't have it, and you want it, I may be able to scrounge it up from when I exported the whole database before the site died. SamHB 22:03, 28 May 2015 (EDT)

yah yah, I was worried about that and would appreciate it. What happened to wikinet anyway?It died without fanfare and I lost tons of original creations. Rob Smith 00:01, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I lost a lot too. When I saw that it was going away (long story) I exported the whole database; it's in an xml file, as I recall. I'm not familiar with xml extraction, but it was the best I could do. It's on one of my disks, I believe. I'll see what I can do, but it may take a while. SamHB 00:43, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
How many decent size articles are going to be recovered and put on CP? 05:25, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
I was simply offering this as a personal favor to Rob. I would do the same for SharonW or AlanE. Rob can put his material up if he chooses. If you are wondering whether I'm planning to bring over any of my own material, or anyone else's, the answer is no. It's a very long story, and I won't bore you with it, but essentially none of what I wrote for AW would be suitable for here, for various reasons—it's basically a difference of "vision". Also, what I wrote about science for AW used lots of pictures and diagrams, and I don't have upload rights. There have been a couple of very tiny exceptions, like what I wrote recently about Joseph Warren. I did that from memory. It's very interesting that he was the guy who "pushed the button" and made the decision to start the American Revolution, and I wanted that in the CP article. In any case, there was nothing about atheism and sailboats.  :-) SamHB 22:34, 29 May 2015 (EDT)
Yah virtually all of it is redundant. They're my original versions from WP, CP, and elsewhere. Rob Smith 00:02, 30 May 2015 (EDT)
Are you saying you don't need me to recover your AW material? I'll do it if you need me to, but it's something of a pain. So if you've saved it, or contributed it elsewhere, please use that. SamHB 00:12, 30 May 2015 (EDT)

Welcome back! --Joaquín Martínez 19:03, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

I sent you an email


I just sent you an email. Conservative 16:20, 10 June 2015 (EDT)

Had no idea this account was unblocked. Thanks. Have U seen my Global jihad essay? It's #16 on Google out of 2.4 million. Or my DAESH entry (well, not all mine) it has been in the top 6 of Google for one solid year now. Rob Smith (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
Glad you are getting some readers for your global jihad work. You put a lot of work into it. Same with the DAESH article.
As far as the title of the article "Essay: Global jihad", my guess is that people prefer articles and not essays. You would probably get more clicks if you didn't have the prefix "Essay".
My guess is that your article was too right wing for the website your wrote it for so you had to use the prefix essay.
I could be wrong though. I have had some popular web pages with the prefix essay that rank well for relevant terms at a search engine beginning with a G. :)
Anyways, take a look at my note below and I wish you all the best. Conservative (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia's web traffic is up

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company Alexa,[1]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.Conservative (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

re: recent note to me


You wrote: "Accept my terms for returning...". I already recommended to the owner of CP that you be made a Sysop again. I set up the ball in front of net, now it's your job to spoke it over the net.

There is really nothing for me to accept. Only the owner of CP can reinstate your Sysop rights. Get in contact with the owner of CP and hammer something out.

I also suggest contacting Karajou. You want him to be for it and not against it.

I wish you the best in getting back your Sysop rights. Conservative (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

If you hit a wall when asking for your Sysop rights back, I suggest building up some goodwill with some new content at CP and then asking again. If necessary (and I don't think it would be necessary), keep repeating this cycle until your are a Sysop.
I really think it would be easy for your to get your Sysop rights again. You just need to put a little effort into it. Andy liked your content so I am confident things would work out. Conservative (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

Kept your content from being deleted.

There was an attempt to delete your Essay: New Ordeal content. I could see that you put a lot of work into it so I merely moved it so it would not be deleted.

I like the term "New Ordeal". It is clever. Conservative (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Put this on Andy's talk page - work something out with Andy - RobS: Another reason why he should be an editor and subsequently be an admin. Something should be worked out

This was originally put on Talk:High_morale_of_Christendom, so as to get Cons's attention, and then moved here. SamHB (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (EDT)
But it might interest you [that's Cons] to know that, back at Ameriwiki (you remember Ameriwiki? No? It's just as well) Rob wrote a gigantic number of articles about Communism in the 30's and 40's, and senator McCarthy, and FDR, and Venona, etc. etc. A biographical page for every person involved in that subject, and Rob is a walking encyclopedia of that. I believe there were hundreds of such pages. They swamped the "random page" thing. That is, when you clicked on "random page", you had a high probability of getting one. It made Ameriwiki look like an encyclopedia of Communism during the FDR administration, while I was trying to make it look like an encyclopedia of Americana and American history. (And mathematics too, of course.) Rob had put an enormous amount of effort into writing those articles, and I put an equally enormous amount of effort into combining them into sections of one huge page. Or several huge pages. Whatever. Rob and I communicated during this, and he appreciated the work I was doing. I assume he has saved all that stuff somewhere.
SamHB (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

If RobS has backups of his Ameriwiki articles, see if he wants to put them onto Conservapedia.

I may have a backup; I made an export of the whole web site, as a gigantic xml file, before Ameriwiki disappeared. I may have it on some disk somewhere. But I hope RobS has better things to do in 2016 than put that material up. SamHB (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

The middle/centrists appear to be dropping out of America politics somewhat and the far right/alt right and socialist wings appear to be growing. I am guessing there is some topical overlap between socialists and communists as there are anti-socialist communists, anti-communist socialists, etc. etc. etc.

In addition, communism articles and atheism articles at the same wiki is a great match. A good portion of people interested in atheism articles would also be interested in communism articles. The two areas are related as atheism was a central tenet of communism.

I do regret pushing for RobS to lose his admin status. Maybe he will decide to purse being an admin again. I know Andy liked his article contributions. Conservative (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Winograd Commission (Democratic Party)

re: Winograd Commission (Democratic Party)

I made the change you requested. Sorry about my first attempt of "Winograd Commission (Wisconsin)". I did a favor for a friend last night and was up a bit late. I was a little groggy. Your suggestion made a lot more sense. Conservative (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary Clinton article

Given present demands on my time, I shouldn't have waded into the Hillary Clinton article and done it in a matter that minimized discussion.

If you want to revert the article to your last version, please do so.

Lastly, I don't see myself getting involved in any of the political oriented articles at Conservapedia in 2016 given my present priorities. Conservative (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary article

RobS, you can revert the Hillary Rodham Clinton article and then fill it in if you decide to be an active editor. I clearly said that.

Don't put back in the editorial warning in italics and the beginning of the article. See my talk page comments on this matter. Conservative (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Hillary Clinton article - do whatever you want with the article

Do whatever you want with the Hillary Clinton article. I am not going to interfere again with any of your political content.

I will let the other admins/editors who are into politics more work with you on the political articles since they are more interested in politics than I am.

I am going to take a long break from the news and attend to other matters so I won't be doing any wiki content or oversight as far as political topics. Conservative (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Detente

I am glad we are now in a period of detente.

Down the pike when I have more time at my disposal and should you remain an active editor, I will once again recommend you get your admin status back.

I have already changed Karajou's opinion so now he is in favor of it. And you are also closer down the field in terms of getting Andy to agree. Andy is a conservative lawyer and they tend to be a cautious lot, but I believe that if you are persistent that this will ultimately win the day. Conservative (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2016 (EDT)