Last modified on September 9, 2017, at 23:19

User talk:Anglican/Archive

Return to "Anglican/Archive" page.


Hello, Anglican/Archive, 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, Anglican/Archive!

When creating articles, please add sources. I know that Greg Gutfeld is not an atheist (he is agnostic). Also, I have seen no sources stating that Jesse Watters is episcopalian. If you would provide a source, I would appreciate that. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
I just added a source for Watters, while Gutfeld identifies as an "agnostic atheist" which in reality is just an atheist. --Anglican (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Fair enough, but there is a difference between Gutfeld and a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins, and that should be noted by at least calling him an "agnostic atheist." --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that, and it does provide a sense of nuance. --Anglican (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Not to change to subject, but welcome! If you need anything or have any questions, let me know! --David B (TALK) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

What is a "500 Internal Server Error" and why do I periodically get one of these, and why is it such a laborious task to submit an edit? I'm just unsure of whether there is something wrong with my end or what else the issue could possibly be. --Anglican (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Those can happened when the server receives a great amount of traffic, and they are a reason I often, before submitting an edit, select the whole article and hit "Ctrl-C" to copy in case something doesn't work. I don't know of any cure for them. It's not your fault - otherwise it wouldn't be called an "Internal Server Error."--Abcqwe (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I see. Sorry if I'm not as computer literate as I should be: I'm still learning more about wiki formatting as well even though I learned the basics while I was on Wikipedia. Do you have any idea as well why whenever I want to send an edit that I have to answer one of the same five or so questions every time? My apologies if this is basic information, but I'm really trying to contribute to this encyclopedia.--Anglican (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
No apologies needed. That question is to verify you are a real person. Conservapedia receives a fair amount of attacks, both vandalism to simply harm the project, and spam to promote some other website or project. Since both of these are best done using automated programs and scripts, the question is there to make sure you can provide a logical answer. At some point as you contribute here, that requirement will probably be removed so you can simply submit the change without answering.
As for the server errors, Abcqwe is right. Sometimes heavy traffic is a kind of attack on the site (DDoS attack) and sometimes it can be just because it it being accessed non-maliciously by many users, bots, web crawlers, etc. If you wait a little bit, the problem should be resolved. Sometimes you can go for months without seeing that, other times it will happen numerous times each day. In any case, it is not your fault, and is effecting a number of people. Copying the text is always a good idea before submitting. However, if you forget to do that and get the error, try clicking your browser's "back" button. Some browsers such as Firefox and Vivaldi store the text temporally, so they will reload page and text. Then you can wait a couple minutes, and try submitting it again. It's not perfect, but it often works.
I hope these won't be too much of a problem for you! --David B (TALK) 20:47, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I see! I've lived much of my life without a computer, so I have much to learn. It's unfortunate to hear about these attacks, so I understand the purpose of this mechanism. Although sometimes I provide a correct answer but it rejects it.--Anglican (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
No problem--I'm interested in computers and have used them for a while, but am still learning as well. Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions, even if they do seem simple. If the challenge question does not accept the proper answer, you might want to mention it to User:Aschlafly. Give him the exact question and your answer--if he agrees, he will probably fix the problem. --David B (TALK) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

What I've learned here

I'm sure by now you've figured the various things like the uses of asterisks to make bulleted lists, or number signs to make numbered lists (maybe), and the uses of apostrophes:

  1. Makin' contractions
  2. Italic text
  3. Bold text
  4. 'Four apostrophes do this'
  5. Bold Italic Text

Since you're new, and seem to want to be a good contributor, I'd like to tell you some of the most useful things I've learned about wiki-formatting. Maybe you know them, and that's fine - maybe not.

  • A redirect from, say, "pop" to "soda" can be made by making a page, called "pop" with the contents, "#REDIRECT Soda" - if you add other lines, though, it doesn't work.
  • If you want a new category, just make a page with the title Category:Bach Fugues (or whatever you want) with the word "Category" and the colon. It will collect all the articles with that tag automatically.
  • You can make degrees symbols with a lowercase letter o in superscript, and make chemical formulas with subscript: H2O. However, degrees symbols look better with the symbol from the special characters menu,(90°) and I try to correct it when I can. Also, exponents that you need to combine in complex expressions can be made using math tags: instead of "x=sqrtx2", one can write .
  • Fractions can be written in math tags like this:
  • This can be used to create more complex expressions: . That piece I admit I copied from Wikipedia - which taught me that to use pi in math tags, I have to type \pi and not the true π symbol.
  • Be sure to add a reflist template and category tags, and sometimes defaultsort, the purpose of which is to make things appear right in category pages when they are alphabetized, like DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George or DEFAULTSORT:Federalist Papers, The. These can be changed in the category tags, so that on the article for George Washington can appear under "W" in the U.S. Presidents category, but under "G" in any category of people named Washington.
  • Tables are made like the one below. Adding "class = "wikitable"" can make table lines appear.
  • Using <nowiki> tags can help when explaining a wiki's features.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Name Address Phone Number
John Smith 123 Main Street 555-1234
Jane Jones 456 First Street 555-5678
I learned some of this during my time as a Wikipedia editor, but I'm always desiring to learn more about formatting and other topics. It is greatly appreciated. --Anglican (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2017 (EDT)


Hello Anglican, thank you for your articles and edits, but I've noticed that you do not add sources. For example, your article Catholic-lite is good, but it could use sources, particularly to show that this article is a common term as the article claims. I encourage you to add good sources to those articles and any other big changes you made. Adding sources is Commandment #2 in Conservapedia:Commandments, and it really does help in creating good, high-quality articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

I see. My mistake since I've read quite a few articles without sources on here, and during my Wikipedia days, some people insisted upon sources for even the most common of knowledge. However, my edit to Hollywood values should not include sources because this is a family friendly encyclopedia, right? In addition, the stand up show where Williams originated the term Catholic-lite contains profanities. --Anglican (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
If you can find sources criticizing these things, that would be the best. If you need to cite a source that would not be appropriate for children, you can always note that in the reference. However, I don't see any reason why you cannot cite the TV show and the episode and etc. It's always good to know where you got the info, even if it may be inappropriate for children. As I already stated, you can always say that the source is inappropriate, and in the case of citing a TV show, it's not like you have to privide a link. Just a good cite.
Regarding other CP articles, yes, it is unfortunate that many editors do not bother adding sources. I think not including sources is bad for CP (or any encyclopedia). I think every editor should show the reader where they got their information. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Would you please, at least, add the websites of the university articles you are creating? Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes. These articles are still in progress. --Anglican (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

New Template

Hello. I'd just like to inform you that it would be greatly beneficial if you were to assist on working on the following newly created template; Template:Bible Cities

This template was created less than a week ago, and is an attempt to record all the biblical cities of the Old and New Testaments. It would be helpful if you, and other fellow editors at Conservapedia, were to assist in creating articles describing these biblical cities. If you are willing to start making some of these pages, but are not exactly sure how to approach the task, I'd suggest looking at Rhegium or Beeroth, two very (very) recent pages created by myself (Shaaraim is another good example) to get a good understanding at how this thing should be done. If you're willing to go above and beyond, take a look at the page Amphipolis, perhaps the best biblical city page to date. Just to note, this request is optional and you may help out on your own volition.Korvex (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

Duly noted. --Anglican (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (EDT)


Thanks for keeping after vandals today! I just wanted to mention a couple things.

  1. Admins have tools to facilitate the removal of vandalism. If you see it happening, you can revert the damage sooner, but you don't need to stress about reverting it all, either. Nonetheless, I appreciate that you were, since his efforts didn't even last a minute. Just don't feel obligated to do that.
  2. When a vandal is on the loose, feel free to tell me. The best way would be to send me a text message, which you can do using a link on my user page. Of course, you are not obligated to do this either, but if you do, I might be able to block them sooner. Then again, I may be busy or unable to receive your message, so it may not help. In any case, it can't hurt.
  3. Thanks again! --David B (TALK) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the info. Although I think my reversions kept him from progressing because he did more pages when I lagged.--Anglican (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Also, do you think the TS article should be protected from editing?--Anglican (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Yes, it seems that was working!
I'm starting to think short-term protection for TS might be in order. Maybe locking it for a week would help. --David B (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Good call, go for it. If it deters him from vandalizing the page, all the better. Northwest (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
Seems like a good idea although I have absolutely no idea why he keeps attacking that page. --Anglican (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2017 (EDT)
I think the right thing, if a checkuser operation suggests it, is an IP block. His modus operandi is to feign obsession with Taylor Swift. A long time ago, after the grownups (of which I was one) banned him from Ameriwiki, he created another wiki, spoofing ours, creating and then preemptively blocking accounts of said grownups, and plastering huge pictures of Joseph Stalin and Taylor Swift on the main page. With a caption indicating that Mr. Stalin (who died in 1953) was in love with Ms. Swift (who was born in 1989). That's the kind of person we are dealing with. Basically he's saying "Hey, everybody! Remember me, the guy who trashes wikis with incredibly childish vandalism, and basically acts like a moron? And pretends to be obsessed with Taylor Swift? I'm back!"
The right thing to do is be sure he gets blocked and stays blocked. If that is done it won't be necessary to protect the Taylor Swift page. And if it isn't done, there may be a lot of vandalism to a lot of pages.
I actually had an extended email dialog with him about 4-1/2 years ago. He told me at the time that he was suffering from serious health problems. I'm glad things are going better for him. SamHB (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2017 (EDT)
Well, I think that the TS article should be protected if this crazy man comes back because it sounds like he's rather unhinged. I'm not sure why he'd come here if it was other sites he was involved with, but either way his main target seemed to be the TS article.--Anglican (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
Perhaps, but I generally don't support long-term protection. It doesn't stop vandals, it just redirect them to other pages.
This guy might have been discouraged by timely temporary protection. However, I don't think the pages should be permanently protected. F.Y.I., Ameriwiki was, as I understand it, the precursor to CP. SamHB explained it to me once, but unfortunately I've forgotten the details since. I'll see if I can find his post of that from a year or so ago to me. You could ask him, though. --David B (TALK) 20:49, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

First, I don't think the page should be protected. This guy probably won't come back, and there are lots of pages for lots of people to vandalize. That's why so many people have vandalism-stopping block powers.

Nononono, Ameriwiki wasn't a precursor to Conservapedia. It was created by refugees from CP; think of it as "conservatism without the obsession with bestiality and obesity". But we took ourselves too seriously, and there wasn't much of a market on the internet for seriously trying to preserve that which is good about society. There are way too many web sites like that. Making fun of CP, which is what RW was about, was way more fun. They were so successful that they branched out into making fun of all sorts of things, and are trying to get away from just ridiculing CP. SamHB (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
OH! Well I got that considerably wrong then--thanks for the correction. --David B (TALK) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (EDT)
I see! I had suggested protection because I had to revert that article several times before he was finally blocked. --Anglican (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Main Page reversion

Hello Anglican, I see that you reverted a user on Talk:Main Page who was promoting liberal views. While I appreciate your edit, we do allow people with leftist views to comment on the talk pages, so long as their comments are not inappropriate and as long as they do not cause vandalism. If they make many edits, and most of those edits are talk page comments, per Conservapedia:90/10 rule, then we will block them. I hope this helps! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

I thought mockery/trolling was forbidden. I'm just trying to help out in any way thatI can. --Anglican (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
That's a fair point. I guess this case was just more questionable. RobS apparently disagreed with you, and he apparently wanted to discuss the whole thing anyway, so I guess it's safe to let it be. I appreciate your help, however! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

Elvis Presley

Why are you deleting articles and making them redirect? I see no reason to do so, and at least, you should discuss it with an admin. I recommend undoing the redirects that once were articles and discussing it with an admin like Andy, Conservative, or Karajou. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

Personally, I think it's nice and compacts the encyclopedia. I've moved all the lost information to the Elvis Presley page.--Nathan--Abcqwe (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
I'm trying to streamline the articles, and when I try to suggest things on talk pages they sometimes get ignored so I'm just thinking that doing it and correcting it in the case of error may be the best approach. I really don't think so many subpages with little different to offer from the main article is clean and may be confusing to readers. --Anglican (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
I was originally in favor of more subpages, but I think that all these articles on Elvis need to be streamlined because most of the information is already in the main article anyway, or at least moving it to one of the main subarticles. Three or so subarticles is fine, and an article on each movie is fine, but so many subarticles that differ little from the main article is unnecessary. --Anglican (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2017 (EDT)
I think I've finished streamlining the articles. Maybe soon the main article can be trimmed a bit and the subarticles can be expanded upon, but I've merged a lot of the articles since there were really far too many. If there are any objections, please do let me know. As a relatively new editor, I'm still learning how to do things, so please bear with me.--Anglican (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2017 (EDT)

James Wilson

I can't believe the vandal has been terrorizing you - but of course, some people monitor the Recent changes feed (I do) and he's likely mad for what happened to his articles. Don't let him get to you - remember that is he is just hateful, he is going to hate, and you have to ... shake 'em off ... shake 'em off.----Nathan (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2017 (EDT)

By the way, I'm going to bed now - I'm on EST and have a chemistry final in the morning - so if RonnieDrake turns out to be a vandal, I won't be here to block him.----Nathan (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
It is much appreciated. He seems mad about the merger of those articles now? Good luck with your final! --Anglican (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
He's certainly mad - when you made so many articles into redirects, he though we were losing information, and it's like you stepped on his blue suede shoes. But he's nothing but a hound dog, and you needn't worry.
I know the reply was unnecessary, but I wanted to make the Elvis jokes.--Nathan (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2017 (EDT)
Good luck with him - I get the impression that you're a bit young, maybe even my age, and a bit afraid. Still, he's not a reason to stop editing.--Nathan (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

I unblocked you

You should never have been blocked. While you should not have removed the deletion notice, at least so soon, there was no reason to block you. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

My apologies for blocking you. However, please do not allow your personal prejudices to cause you to attempt to thwart due process in this site. --Ronald (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (EDT)
@RonaldB: we should realize that there had been no activity on the AFD page for over two days. More and more I'm beginning to think that Anglican's actions were completely justified. It's not fun having these matters hang in limbo because of lack of interest. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

I think the deletion case is settled, and your article stays. Although this is the case, the list of games should be dewikified unless you plan on producing entries for them in the near future. Also, they should be fairly notable to warrant entries: besides the Donkey Kong ones, I'm not too sure which other ones are notable enough to warrant separate entries so I would rather let you sort that section on list of games out since you seem to know a lot about the company and presumably their products. --Ronald (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

So, why was I blocked? Assuming RonaldB isn't a full Administrator, it seems that such a block was inappropriate and it stopped me from finishing my work posting the 1611 KJV Tobit. There aren't exactly proper procedures regarding how long the process would last, and I put in a lot of effort thus far in that article. It still has a long way to go, a lot more content, and the need to find reliable sources from reputable entities which can be a bit difficult given that Rare has historically been a company known for its secrecy. --Anglican (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

Stopping you from finishing your work was another issue I had with the block. However, are you planning on making articles from the numerous red links in the Rare article? If not, RonaldB will remove those red links. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2017 (EDT)
I have already removed red links from the games that are more obscure in Rare's catalog, and I am only planning on making articles on the more notable of them, as I already have started articles on the Donkey Kong Country games, which are some of the most notable. --Anglican (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2017 (EDT)