User talk:RobSmith/archive5

136K is very impressive!  :P - --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 05:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I saw you could change the news on the main page. I thought this item, where a liberal blogger suggest a woman convicted of murder be released because she got away with it for 35 years might be of interest to the comunity. ItMathers 13:23, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Question: Doesn't partisanship for the sake of partisanship work to the advantage of jihadists and al-Qaeda, dividing America, and further the agenda of liberals and terrorist dupes? Rob Smith 13:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I thought the position the guy took in the blog was clear. Guess not. ItMathers 13:40, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't even see the word "liberal" in the text; it would have to be put in by an editor here by extrapolation, based upon limited sourcing. It's a news item, and if opinions are formed based upon newsitems, God help us all. In a wider context, you're dealing with divisive social issues. I'm not certain if you are aware, but there's a war on (it's been in all the newspapers). I don't think it's possible to win a war if the American people are focused upon blaming themselves and each other for divisive social issues.

Ultimately, its just commie prop that works to the advantage of America's enemies, and only furthers thier agenda when highlighted. Rob Smith 13:52, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

It is fodder for extrapolation. The blogger writes that the woman should not be punished, that her time spent hiding from the authorities ammounted to a sentence harsher than the state's. I think that makes the position he takes a liberal one. A real conservative would not accept this as "punishment"--she escaped from prison, after she received a life sentence. I don't feel safe living in a country where a convicted murderer is allowed to live her life without punishment just because she didn't commit any more crimes. That's why I exercise my right to bare arms in the home when I am concerned for my safety. ItMathers 14:15, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I respect fully dissent. (a) We have limited information. (b) There is nothing to make this a liberal vs conservative issue, other than our own prejudices. (c) God preaches mercy. (d) God established Cities of Refuge. [1] (e) Moses and King David were both willful murderers. Rob Smith 14:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Now I see what you're saying. I agree and I'll try to find better examples in the future. Thanks! ItMathers 14:41, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

• Mathers, I think your heart is in the right place, but on items like this, RobS is our resident expert. Sometimes you need to be sure to ask him to explain more fully. What this man knows about subversion and the roots of what we see bearing fruit today, is second nature to him, and he often forgets more about it than we will learn in a lifetime. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:35, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a good point. I brought this to Rob intially because I knew he would know, more than anyone else, how to handle it. I am glad the people like Rob are here. ItMathers 18:37, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry

---

I didn't realize that a sysop had deleted the "Guilt by Association" article. I just saw it on the most wanted list and made it. I was researching the topic so I could expand to discuss how the libs always try to slam McCarthy with the term, and otheral liberal lies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Lukecorlando 18:14, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

• Hey Luke! Check this out: [[2]] Rob suggested I pass that on to you for a starting point in making a new article about Guilt by Association. Let me know what you think, and I am sure Rob will give you any advice you ask for here! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:22, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Dear Robs,

Did they have volume 2 of that book? If i am not mistaken you said you were going to check today. Conservative 21:56, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Dear Robs,

I just sent you an email. Regarding the additional info you gave me. Conservative 22:47, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

The talk page is locked on the Joseph McCarthy page. So, it's difficult to address any issues pertaining to the page. To wit, there are unsubstatiated statements in italics referring to Senator Flanders's initiative to censure the Senator from Wisconsin:

While, over the past few years, Senator McCarthy withstood countless biased and unsubstantiated attacks by Liberals, Communists, etc., the organized effort to remove McCarthy from his Chairmanship and officially condemn him began in the Spring of 1954. It was started by fellow Republican Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont at the behest of a coalition of Communists, Liberals, and Eisenhower Administration officials. Flanders told the Senate that McCarthy's "anti-Communism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear into the hearts of any defenseless minority"; accused McCarthy of spreading "division and confusion" and saying, "Were the Junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists he could not have done a better job for them."[97] Flanders had obtained his list of charges against McCarthy from a left-wing group named the National Committee for an Effective Congress.

The citable literature suggests that Flanders felt that McCarthy's emphasis on possible Communists within our borders distracted us from a much greater menace of Communist encroachment abroad. The literature shows Flanders to be a conservative marching to his own drummer and not supported (except for one note from Eisenhower after his March speech) by the administration. Given Flanders's professed enmity towards the Roosevelt administration, it is remarkable to suggest that he would be in collaboration with the National Committee for an Effective Congress. Instead, he consulted with Senators Cooper and Fulbright to develop articles of censure that were consistent with previous actions.

I request that the italicized statements be either deleted or substantiated with proper references.

Sincerely, User:Norwich 10/22/07

Ok, I am somewhat in agreement, a personal innterpretation being that basically Ike engineered silencing McCarthy. I'll process the request. Rob Smith 14:10, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I just sent you an important email. Conservative 15:49, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Rob, I was wondering if you could unprotect this article. It was vandalized over a week ago, and both vandals have been blocked. I'd like to categorize it and embolden the title. Thanks, Greg 21:52, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Dear RobS,

Thanks for your help on the homosexuality and homicide material. I just posted the material. I have notified various people to link to the material and hopefully they will. In light of hate crime legislation, I think the material has some relevance. Conservative 23:08, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I noticed a formatting error on your userpage today, and I found the source in your userboxes. I remade a version of your user page here if you'd like to fix the problem. The red border around a few of the userboxes is gone, I played around with it and couldn't get it to work, but that's the only change I made. Greg 19:29, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Dear RobS,

I am not disagree with material you wrote. At the same time, I really don't understand the first paragraph plus I think you need to cite your sources and elaborate more on how Brandt/Berlet were feuding.

Here is the first paragraph that I don't understand:

"An ugly sectarian dispute between two far leftist writers reared its head in Wikipedia in 2005 and continues to plague the project. The feud had been dormant, yet unresolved, until the necessity to elevate a “controversial expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme,” which would have precluded using the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate."

Secondly, I don't really see how Berlet and Brandt are feuding here:

"Chip Berlet built a career writing in various far-left revolutionary publications, including Guardian, founded by KGB agent Cedric Belfrage, and whose writers included Wilfred Burchett who introduce Ho Chi Minh to American readers, assisted in extracting confessions from Korean War POWs, spread disinformation in its pages about American use of germ warfare which Soviet Archives now conclusively have shown was a lie manufactured in the Kremlin. Berlet at one time served on Daniel Brandt’s Public Information Research board of advisers, but Berlet's extreme leftism demands ideological purity from its followers, and Berlet demanded removal of Fletcher Prouty from the Board. Prouty, a former Air Force colonel, was allegorically portrayed as “Man X” in the Oliver Stone film JFK, and Berlet considered him a fascist."

Lastly, as I stated earlier you need to cite your sources. I hope you don't mind the constructive remarks I am making here but I think you need to make things clearer plus give your readers some assistance via sources. Conservative 17:37, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. And I definetely will need some input on the writing style for clarity. All of it, all of it, will be cited. That intro is a basic outline as to what is going to follow. Right now, the idea is to merge all three sections, Berlet, Brandt, Essjay, add some more content, and include Jimbo Wales statement to Editor & Publisher which was based upon information he got from Berlet, and only fueled the whole controversy, which now has claimed numerous victims all claiming stalking, harassment, outing without consent, libel and defamation, etc. etc. etc.

I'll be working on it somemore in a few hours. Rob Smith 18:19, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

No problem. I think one of the major issues is that it appears as if "controversial expert" is some official designation at Wikipedia but you don't clearly state that. I also think you need to tidy up the rest of the first paragraph in terms of clarity and I would suggest asking people for their feedback until there is sufficient clarity. I also don't clearly see a feud between Brandt/Berlet. A feud to me conjurs up "volleys" occuring between parties. Conservative 18:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

"expert" is a designation Berlet was granted, in violation of thier own stated policies. However, it appears rescinded now, as WP got burned on the issue of "experts" in the Essjay controversy. They appear now to be referred to as "knowledgeable editors".

The Brandt/Berlet dispute predates Wikipedia, begins in 1991. It was reignited in 2005. Rob Smith 20:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

The second and third paragraphs are fine now except for the lack of current citations. The first paragraph is still unclear.

Are these Wikipedia rankings: “controversial expert" and “partisan and extreme"? If so, you have to tell your readers this. A good rule of thumb would be to assume that your readers do not know "Wikitalk". Conservative 21:50, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I will be unable to help you further until Saturday or perhaps later. I am sure you can ask someone else though. Conservative 21:51, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, I'll put a cite in on the partisan vs extreme shortly. And the "controversial expert" portion was indeed an Arbitration ruling, which superceded existing No Original Research policy which stated, "such experts do not occupy a position of privilege," which I think is already cited in the Chip Berlet subsection already. But "expert" seems to be language they now are abandoning, and they are no longer hiding the fact that certain persons, ideas, and agendas are given preference, if not outright being promoted. Rob Smith 21:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Going through the uncategorized pages list, I found these two pages: [3] and [4]. I'm not sure why they exist. The user hasn't been active since, and I was wondering if they should be deleted. Greg 23:05, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. You're right. The names are not even quite correct anyway. I'll get rid of them. Rob Smith 23:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Could you also delete the page I made to fix your userpage? Here is a link: [5]. Greg 23:43, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Rob, thanks for this help. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:39, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Why did you block HelpJazz?--Tash 17:31, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Tendentious editing through sockpuppets. Rob Smith 17:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I will review his edits later tonight. DanH 19:58, 4 November 2007 (EST)

I responded to you at Talk:Writer's Guild of America. Thank you for correcting my edit, by the way.

Dear RobS,

I just sent you an important email. If you could respond I would appreciate it.Conservative 21:34, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I responded to your email and have a pleasant surprise for you.Conservative 23:56, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Rob, I was wondering if you were familiar with the Wikipedia fiasco on the Upper Peninsula War; a conflict which never occurred but nonetheless earned a Wikipedia entry for a while. Thought you might want to add it to the Wikipedia article. Greg 23:40, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks. Being from Wisconsin, us Cheeseheads have always regarded the UP as irredenta so I am familiar with the dispute (I got family up there). There's still a movement to this day to create a separate State of Superior, taking in portions of the northern Wisconsin & the UP.

(Incidental totally irrelevent factoid: While residents of the UP are commonly called "Yuppers," Yuppers have always called those who live beneath the Bridge "trolls." That, it appears, is the original meaning of "troll," "one who lives beneath the bridge.") Rob Smith 15:47, 10 November 2007 (EST)

RobS,

Currently the conservapedia homosexuality article states this:

In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported the following regarding homosexuality and domestic violence:

“ Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community... Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are HIV-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humilation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.[6]

Given the brutality of homosexual homicides, I am betting there may be more in relation to homosexual domestic abuse and partners harming pets. It appears as if in general domestic abusers who also engage in pet abuse are often the most violent.[7]

Here is a tip: The medical literature often uses the term MSM or men who have sex with men as a term for those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Do you have any interest in helping me research this matter? Conservative 21:41, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Dear RobS,

I think I found what I am looking for but I am not sure how to find this work.

Here is the work:

“HIV Violence: A National Report Published by the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project and the National Association of People with AIDS,” 1996.

Any suggestions? Conservative 19:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I just sent you an important email. By the way, I don't need your help with the aforementioned homosexuality/domestic abuse/pet abuse material anymore. 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Hi Rob,

What's the difference between the categories KGB and KGB Agents and Sources? They both seem to have individual names in them. Does one take prominence over the other? Thanks Learn together 16:39, 14 November 2007 (EST)

• Sorry, Bill....but Andy asked me to be the "decider" as to categories. Perhaps we have been over that already? Rob is off for the Holiday so cannot answer. KGB is the main category. If you go to that category page, you will clearly see that KGB Agents and Sources is a sub-category of KGB. Does that help you out? --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:08, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Not really, they both appear to be used in the same fashion. That's what I was curious about. Learn together 17:18, 14 November 2007 (EST)

• When one goes to the Category, KGB, it says right in the top section that the KGB category contains the sub-category agents and sources! How is that unclear? Your answer is, Agents and Sources is a sub category of KGB, which is the main, top level category there. KGB would most likely be a sub category of Intelligence Agencies then. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:27, 14 November 2007 (EST)

It doesn't help when the articles under KGB are all individuals. Wouldn't that make them agents? That's what I was asking Rob about. There may be another nuance I am not aware of. Learn together 17:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

• I apologize for not making myself, clear Bill. The article, if there is one, about the KGB would will under the cat "Intelligence Agencies" and possible Soviet Government or the like. The individual's would need to be moved to the sub category, agents and sources. Sorry for my confusion. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:42, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Hello Rob, do you know of any better sources to cite for the Murray Rothbard article? I don't, although Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty, which I have not read and don't have a copy of handy, may cover the same material. Love him or hate him, Justin Raimondo's book about Murray Rothbard is the standard reference (and to my knowledge the only biography) available on Rothbard.

Also, on another subject, if Daily Kos and the Center for Democratic Renewal aren't hate groups, my proposal in that case would be that Category: Hate Groups should be deleted. To my knowledge "hate groups" is a neologism invented by the Southern Poverty Law Center for the purpose of ritual defamation, and has often been misapplied by them and others to conservative groups. Turnabout is fair play, or if not, the term shouldn't be used at all. Just my two cents. Parrothead 07:18, 4 December 2007 (EST)

• Raimondo's book about Murray Rothbard is the standard reference

• What? in Cuba, N. Korea, and CCP gulags? or is it among CNN & DNC talking points? Something is needed to support that claim.
• As to the CDR, it would be interesting to see some kind of sourcing or evidence to support the claim. I wasn't aware liberal publications and institutions held a strict definition of the term as its application seems arbitrary in many cases. Rob Smith 16:39, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Please stop being ridiculous. Raimondo and Rothbard are the polar opposite of Cuba and N. Korea, and I doubt CNN and the DNC even know who they are. Parrothead 20:50, 6 December 2007 (EST)

We'll probably need some answer to the questions raised by Stephan Schwatrz here, point by point, before Justin Raimando is considered a credible source about anything. Rob Smith 12:53, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I see you reverted me even though I clearly asked you to discuss on the talk page. So be it. I resent being called a "commie apologist" - pointing out thar Marx's work - for good or bad - had important ramifications for the study of sociology (not to mention economics and history) is not expressing approval for Marxism anymore than calling Adolf Hitler a politician is expressing approval of Nazism. Claude 17:37, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm; so Marx & Hitler are supposed to represent some polar opposites? Rob Smith 17:39, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I do not believe my personal politics has any bearing on how I edit. I try to be as unbiased as possible, a position you might consider. However, if you read my comments in the talk section of Homosexuality, you will find that I did argue in favour of CP's position of including Homosexuality as a sin, but that I also took issue with the biased representation of facts under disease. Further to that, I do not believe that I have had two basic arguments. While I have remained relatively silent lately, I initiated Sociology. Karl Marx happens to be one of the formative theorists. While some of his ideas are the subject of great debate/dispute, his perspective on a number of issues has greatly contributed to the field of sociology; though in actuality he was an economist. Do you have the ability to see both sides of an issue? Or are you blinded by your personal beliefs? --TrueGrit 18:36, 6 December 2007 (EST)

• social issues underlying the spread of disease

• Wow. So the argument is no longer that homosexual behavior is genetic, nor is it a personal choice, rather society forces people into homosexual activity. Sort of like the underlying social causes in the spread of tuberculousis; victims of society, like the homeless for example, are forced into homeless shelters where they are unwittingly exposed to tuberculousis. Is this similiar to the "social issues underlying the spread of disease" for persons engaged in homosexual behvaior?

• You are truly dense. The underlying social factors related to the spread of disease amongst homosexuals, is the lack of education on the dangers. You see, health classes in school are for the most part focused on the dominant (in terms of commonality) heterosexual orientation. Lack of education on the risks would lead homosexuals to believe that they have nothing to worry about, because pregnancy is not an issue.

• Commie rot.

I would argue that the main reason people use protection is to prevent birth, and that venereal disease is only a second thought, if it occurs at all. This lack of understanding of the issues is a result of lack of education, a social factor if you will. I said nothing about social factors affecting homosexuality. However, if you'd like to get into a debate about social factors, you are the one who suggested social factors.

• I quoted you, "social issues."

Consider your use of the term "homosexual agenda". You are the one who suggests that homosexuals are socially created. Otherwise, how would we "convert" them, as you allege we do?

• I think I said "choice."

• I do not believe that [I] have had two basic arguments

• Marxism and the gay agenda. I'm not even going to ask what these two have in common with each other, nor point out Marx, Lenin, and Stalin wrote very little on the subject. But American & European liberal activists seem obsessed, over the past 30+ years, with marrying the two movements. Frankly, it gets tiresome.

• What I meant was that I have been involved in much more than just "Marx" and "Homosexuality". Do you read, or do you just skim and run your mouth off?

• Diversionary tactics, but minor stuff. You still haven't answered the question why contemporary American & European libs are trying to marrying marxism & gayness into a united front.

• actuality he was an economist

• This is debatable since he was such an idiot on the subject, but it's not even worth wasting the time on.

• That's borderline ad hominem. Besides, it's not whether you agree with his opinions that makes him an expert on the issue.

• Marx wasn't an economic idiot? Ask any Cuban refugee.

• Do you have the ability to see both sides of an issue? Or are you blinded by your personal beliefs?

• Certainly. I'm extremely broadminded & flexible. Programmed selling gets tiresome, however. I loose patience with recycled trash that was disposed of decades ago. Rob Smith 13:13, 7 December 2007 (EST)

• You are smug, and I get the impression you think you are somehow superior. Keep in mind this is supposed to be an academic site, and that you should remove your emotion from your writing. Maybe, you should try going to university... er... college as all y'all call it in the USA.

• Hmmm, why are you bullying me? You have convinced me of your own superiority to my wretched and genetically inferior miserable existence. Rob Smith 14:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

MY sources were good sources from the Jewish foundation, Guardian and the Britanica while your sources are biased from Orthodox exrimists and from newsources that don't even exist.

And at the same time you keep the part of my text that was critical of the soviety system. Bah, I'll never give this encyclopedia an other shot after this. It just shows that you can't handle anything negative about religion or positive about communism while at the same time take every opportunity to say something bad. You even twisted my own negative clauses to be even more negative to suit your purpous.

and i put the "right" into citation marks because it was so it was written in the constitution. I didn't agree with it.

It was communist bigotry. Rob Smith 16:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Dear RobSmith,

I notice that you’ve been a primary editor of Joseph McCarthy, so I thought I’d solicit your opinion and help on the portion of the page, pertaining to Ralph Flanders’s role in Condemnation and the Watkins Committee. As I noted on the Talk:Joseph McCarthy#Flanders role in Senate censure, there were some unreferenced passages of questionable provenance. I have since done some research and have provided some proposed text to substitute for the first two paragraphs of the section in question.

I invite you to review the proposed text at User talk:Norwich#Flanders role in Senate censure of Joseph McCarthy and leave feedback on what I’ve proposed before any substitute language is installed in that portion of the McCarthy article.

Sincerely, Norwich 17:33, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Dear RobSmith,

Thank you for your thoughtful input on the above invitation. I'll leave the rest of the McCarthy playing field to those who are more familiar with it. I just wanted to set the record straight on a fellow anti-communist Republican, who reluctantly entered the stage because he felt that a greater menace was looming elsewhere.

I'll proceed with the proposed edit.

Sincerely, Norwich 17:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

why is the wikipedia article locked for editing? isn't that just as bad as what wikipedia does? SlapHappy 21:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)SlapHappy

Some articles are more prone to vandalism and edit warring than others. While they are few in number, a decision was made at the sysop level to protect them. Editing is still possible, but information for inclusion should be inserted in the talk section and will then be reviewed to see if the addition will be inserted. I hope this helps. Learn together 03:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, LT. The Wikipedia article is linked from the Main Page, and most items linked from the main page, as in Wikipedia, are routinely locked. Rob Smith 15:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You can always make suggestions and point out errors in the Talk page. Leopeo 17:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I just sent you a private email. Conservative 16:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)

After some time I still haven't gotten any response to my posts on Talk:Josip Broz and Talk:Louis Adamic. I still don't know what was I doing wrong all the time so I would appreciate if you were to explain why all my edits there got reverted. Qwertz 10:05, 21 December 2007 (EST)

BTW, what's your result on the Political Compass? --SimonA 16:44, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Rob, you might like to consider this as an External Link on the Che Guevara page: http://ronaldandcob.com/people_who_wear_che_guevara_tshirts.html CWE 20:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

In the above mentioned article, you added

Roosevelt decided that with the support of the Southern states which were congenitally Democratic, the city bosses in the big industrial centers who had been induced to New Dealism by government spending, the labor union vote which had been mobilized under unions that were predominantly political, the votes of the racial and religious groups affected by the World War II, and that immense, new, vital and active army of government bureaucrat payrollees.

in the General Election section. This is not a sentence, just a long compund subject. I am guessing that you were saying that "Roosevelt decided he could get the votes with .... etc.", but I don't want to change your work to mean something you don't. I realize that this was from last August, but I found it while just wandering around, and thought you might want to fix it. Boomcoach 12:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi, I noticed that you had unprotected the article earlier this year. Could you either make the change I described here, or unlock the article so I can? Thanks! Dchall1 15:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

RobS has been busy with other matters and hasn't been around much lately. In any case, the article was last protected by DanH, so he'd be the best one to ask. Philip J. Rayment 05:32, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi! I noticed that you added the image on MoveOn.org. I am curious as to the policies regarding image addition. I feel that the McCain article and 2008 election pieces would benefit from more images, but I have never seen a help page with directions. Please let me know if you can help. Thanks!--CTrooper 22:57, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

guns, God, and gays? HenryS 17:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Well unless someone has hacked his account it must be! Welcome back Rob. Hope you have sorted out your personal stuff and are able to stick around for a while. BrianCo 17:42, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much. Still wotking 15 hour days right now, but hope to get away for at least an hour a day in the next two months. God bless all. Rob Smith 17:48, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I saw that a lot of articles relating to terrorism cited ATTAC report. i looked them up and they seem to be a pretty extremist conspiracy group that makes wild inaccurate claims.for instance, Greenpeace is supervised by Red China? upon further research, i discovered it was you who had cited ATTAC so much. i don't know what the deal is becasue they are extremely unreliable and inaccurate. i suggest that in the pursuit better standards, you don't cite them anymore.

user:davidr

Thanks for your kind words, Rob.

crossposted from Talk:Alger Hiss:

This text disappeared:

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

so I removed the quote template. How can we restore this? I must be tired. FOIA 23:59, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

OMG, 15 edits since September! What's going on? --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:22, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome. I finally got a few hours per week (I been struggling to save a business during this past year; the facts are, I have created more jobs than General Motors, Chrysler, and Microsoft combined since last fall....). Hope to get back into the swing of things. Rob Smith 16:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Welcome back. Many things had happen since you got silent.

Your work was always good... welcome home! --Joaquín Martínez 16:52, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Thank you Thank you. Rob Smith 16:53, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

• I emailed you about the other. Thanks for the heads up! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:23, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

I am thinking this "strategy" could well deserve its own article, given the number of times (recently) the liberals have been using it. Of course this ties in with the Nazi's, Communists and other leftists throughout the 20th/21st centuries history. Thoughts? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:07, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Yes the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The same publication has another article on the subject [8]. Rob Smith 18:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Rob, it's great to "see" you again! Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 13:46, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

Thank you! I had to retake a business I sold to avoid the buyers total default. In the process I ended up expanding and pumping more money into it. In fact, during the final quarter of 2008, I created more jobs than General Motors, Chrysler, Microsoft, and Catapiller Tractor combined. When the going gets tough.... Rob Smith 13:59, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

I believe the spelling on your second userbox should be 'between' rather than 'bewteen' --OscarJ 15:05, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Gracias Senor. Rob Smith 15:26, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You need to thank Mark Levin for the data and inspiration. --Jpatt 14:10, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

I just wanted you to know Conservapedia's search engine rankings for the search communism so far:

• Bing ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #5
• Yahoo ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #8
• Google ranks Conservapedia's communism article for the search communism: #18

When and if Conservapedia ranks in the Google top 10 for communism you will see significantly more traffic to your communism related articles.

The search communism gets about 1,800 searches a day from the search engines listed above.

Keep your content creation spree up. You are getting results in terms of people reading your content and it will likely increase if you keep it up. I can keep you informed periodically if you wish. conservative 21:14, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

By the way, since atheism/evolution certainly has some association/relation to communism, I am certainly encouraged by your efforts and results as web traffic created by your communism related articles is certainly helpful to the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles. conservative 21:21, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Thank you very much. I hope to write a good definitve entry on Frank Marshall Davis which can be an entry point for the whole Subversion in Government story, inclduing U.S. Peace Council, Alice Palmer, Dohrn, Ayers, WUO, etc. etc. These I'd like to aim for high Google results. Rob Smith 16:03, 28 July 2009 (EDT)

Can we not move it, rather than redirect, so as to keep the entire edit history? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:51, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

You mean change the text where the redirect came from? Rob Smith 20:56, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

No. I totally missed the move log, and just thought it was redirected, then pasted in. Been that kind of day.....accountants. Like Miss Emily Latilla used to say: "Never mind.". --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:22, 30 July 2009 (EDT)

I know you are no fan of socialism. I also think August could be an important month as far as future economic freedom in the USA as Obama does not want to be defeated on the health care issue which will cause him to lose political momentum.

Would you be interested in creating these articles:

Obama admistration deficit spending

Obama administration corporate bailouts

Obama administration fiscal policy

Obama admistration monetary policy

Please let me know if you are interested as your assistance would be appreciated.conservative 04:47, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

I can do some input, but I'm trying to get Frank Marshall Davis integrated into all the old CPUSA history, then I have to get Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and the WUO all updated cause now it appears they are even larger parts of American history than the sad chapters they wrote several decades ago; I'm about a year behind on all this, but more people are becoming interested everyday in Obama's communist roots & agenda, it would appear. So it even more relevant today than a year ago. Rob Smith 12:53, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

• The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

Thanks for cluing me in, Rob. We have a long row to hoe if we want to stop toeing the Liberal line. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:23, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks for uploading the UN Yalta image, Rob, but CP can't seem to make thumbnails out of gifs. Can you convert it to jpg or png? Thanks again. FOIA 20:07, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Finally some small proof that even radical liberals like Ben & Jerry can learn to not throw good money after bad! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:25, 23 January 2010 (EST)

Interesting read I found that you may like. The Social Basis for American Communism Surprised to find no Oprah books. [9] --Jpatt 23:09, 17 February 2010 (EST)

We might want to consider re-naming this, IMO, to something broader. Any thoughts? Also, I think we need to narrow the root causes. See this. Our article seems to have a progressive spin. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:19, 20 February 2010 (EST)

I'm looking at those three articles, Obama administration, Financial Crisis of 2008, and Recession of 2008. There is no direct wiki link right now between Obama administration and the Financial Crisis of 2008. Obama_administration#Bailout_Crisis, opens with, "After spending over a trillion dollars in cash and guarantees (by Bush and Obama combined)..."; this is the most obvious place for a wiki link. Compare that opening with the CATO report on the external link list just posted, "The U.S. Constitution vests all the 'legislative powers' it grants in Congress...Congress lost control of the implementation of the law and unconstitutionally delegated its powers to the Treasury..."

So we have a structural problem. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make in FDR, the New Deal, and the Great Depression:

"the use of blank-check appropriations and blank-check legislation....early in Roosevelt's first term the NRA Act provided an appropriation of $3,300,000,000 which the President was given to be spent for relief and recovery at his own discretion....He decided how it should be spent and where. If a congressman or senator wanted an appropriation for his district...he went up to the White House with his hat in his hands and asked the President....congressmen had to play along with the President or they got very little or nothing for their districts. This was the secret of the President's power, but it was also a tremendous blow at a very fundamental principle of our government which is designed to preserve the independence of the Congress from the Executive.^[2]

Rob Smith 22:52, 20 February 2010 (EST)

You and I are in agreement, and I think Andy is too....that Congress cannot legally cede its responsibilities to the Executive, under the Constitution. Even if it tries to do so, all actions coming from that would indeed be illegal and impeachable, IMO. It's one of the key points the Tea Partier's are making...too much un-Constitutional stuff is going on! I have far more confidence in Heritage than the others....but you are right, of course, about FDR. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:34, 20 February 2010 (EST)

So despite Prof. Jensen's contention linking the bailout of General Motors to George Bush, the one contiguous thread is a Democratic Congress wrote the bailout law using failed policies from the New Deal as its model. Several revisions is several articles are necessary. Rob Smith 23:42, 20 February 2010 (EST)

Yes, more is always added to an already full plate, Rob. I am not convinced Bush wanted to Nationalize GM, which is exactly what Obama did. Touting the TARP and Stimulus is also troubling for the re-directed unspent funds as well. Isn't it true that over half the funds haven't yet been spent and are already being redirected elsewhere? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 08:06, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Moscow Show Trials Redux [10]

--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 08:01, 24 February 2010 (EST)

About the empty bobble-head. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 14:48, 28 February 2010 (EST)

The Tea Partiers, who Pelosi called "astroturf", as in a fake movement, is now a real movement that has been hijacked by the GOP? Huh? [11] --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:37, 28 February 2010 (EST)

She's running scared. "we share some of the views of the Tea Partiers in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as -- it just has to stop." What hogwash! By invoking GOP in the same breath as Tea Party, she still thinks GOP name brand is tarnished. But the generic ballot poll says otherwise. [12] Rob Smith 23:56, 28 February 2010 (EST)

Great block and revert this morning! It's also terrific having your insights and contributions again.--Andy Schlafly 10:09, 1 March 2010 (EST)

The Conservative Party’s hopes of returning to power for the first time in 13 years took a blow Sunday with a poll giving it the narrowest lead over the ruling Labor Party in two years. The British election will feature live, televised U.S.-style leader debates, and it was reported last week that former White House communications director Anita Dunn has been hired to help Tory leader David Cameron prepare for the three 90-minute encounters. [13]
--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:18, 1 March 2010 (EST)

Wow. She is a very mysterious figure. Rob Smith 06:27, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Do you think Nationalization should be added to Template:Liberalism under policy? TK suggested you'd know more about these matters than either of us. DouglasA 19:18, 2 March 2010 (EST)

I don't see why it couldn't. If someone objects, we can deal with counter arguements. There may very well be valid counter arguements, so I personally wouldn't be set in concrete on this issue. Rob Smith 19:42, 2 March 2010 (EST)

When you have the time, could you look at the Che Guevara talk page and let me know how you feel about the slight change I suggested? My apologies for taking up space on your talk page; I saw that you were one of the administrators who had worked with that page, so I thought I would pose my question to you. Thank you for the help! In Christ, Tyler Zoran 21:49, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

Alger Hiss sounds like a snake. What do you think? --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:13, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

That's evidently how his Venona cover name - Ales - came about; phonetically pronounced "al-iss."

• The (left-wing) literary critic Kenneth Burke recognized that similarity too.--Radh 13:32, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

I've been following your exploits. Nothing gets them on the run faster than facts and logic. I notice no matter what your responses are they keep shifting the focus and obscuring with personal insults. Not a good sign for people who proclaim their "open minds". Perhaps in some distant decade they will finally see the light of what has really happened at WP. But I wouldn't hold your breath! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:34, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Yep. I've really become disgusted with the open vile hatred they display toward Andy over there. And as they get new editors, I just want some of them to think for one minute, "Is this rational?" Rob Smith 16:43, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

They (the old cabal) have a vested interest, a real conflict of interest, in passing down that hate. Not just for Andy, but for you and I, Karajou as well. The personal animosity and hate go well beyond all reason because of possibly being blocked by some small wiki. There are some reasonable souls there, but not many that speak up. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:55, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

It's realy gotten irrational. And look at the impact it's had on children. I'm trying to reason with a youngster now who just happen to be watching when someone placed a harassing message on Andy's page calling him "retarded." This violation of Public Law 109–162 Sec. 113(a)(3) punishable by up to two years in jail [14] he tucked away under his pillow on a subpage as a precious little momento. Why, I ask, would you do that? Haven't got a rational response yet. Rob Smith 20:15, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

The whole place now uses bait and switch tactics, a monument to Saul Alinsky, Alger Hiss and Red Herrings. Not bad for entertainment, as those kind of places go, but hardly a place of open minds and serious discussion what with the constant insults and chronic personal slurs. It is more like a Junior High campus at lunch really. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

In a letter Thursday to House leaders, Caterpillar said Democrats' health care reform legislation would drive up its health care costs by more than 20 percent--- $100 Million Dollars!! [15] --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 21:40, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

I just wanted to thank you for your kind words about me, I also remember having seen (a long time ago) an interesting film by Robert Kramer (1970?), called Ice, a political sf movie, which depicts a "revolutinary" group of people with a nasty twist (revolutionary gets castrated by state terrorists). I think some WU people act in the film./The female founder of one of the Japanese "Red Armie Factions" went to the States around 1969 and saw WPeople (in Chicago?)./ Weather also had a certain influence on the German RAF, but here orthodox Angela Davis was the No. 1 US "freedom fighter", Eldridge Clever was also admired, esp. in Frankfurt by some of the later leaders of the "Revolutionary Cells" (Revolutionäre Zellen), some of them would die at Entebbe.--Radh 13:50, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

AIM really was infiltrated by communists (source: News from Indian Country; Anna Mae Aquash timeline): Vernon Harper, head? of Toronto AIM was a member of the Canadian CP (led an armed assault/occupation? by the Ojibway Warriors Society on Anicinaabe Provincial Park in 1974); George C. Roberts (a Non-Indian!) led? Los Angeles AIM; in 1974 he was made AIM National Media Coordinator. At least one other AIM leader Ken Tilsen (and his wife Rachael Tilsen) were CPUSA. AIM grew out of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Citizens' Community Center; the four who proclaimed the AIM program on July 28, 1969, were Dennis Banks (later to protest against the Sandinistas; against other AIM leaders' wishes), Clyde Bellecourt, an attorney and Black Panther lawyer Matt Eubanks.--Radh 15:30, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind comments. Do you have any good German sources with more biographical information relating to Franz Leopold Neumann during the early founding of the BRD? Rob Smith 15:55, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

I will search for information on Neumann, the local public library is not all that good, but we'll see. P.S.: The is a paberback on Neumann from small SOAK publishers; in their introductory series, "Zur Einführung...", usually very basic texts, but Alfons Söllner seems to be a good (if left wing) author. There is another thing, which might be interesting; Rainer Erd: "Reform und Resignation; Gespräche über F. Neumann" (Talks about Neumann) in the edition suhrkamp, new series. P.P.S.: Neumann helped establish the Berlin Free University and its Institut for Political Science there, I think he was an influence on K. D. Bracher. And Ossip K, Flechtheim wrote his history of Weimar communism at the urging of Neumann.--Radh 14:09, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

[16]

Did FDR End the Depression? The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes

By BURTON FOLSOM JR. AND ANITA FOLSOM

'He got us out of the Great Depression." That's probably the most frequent comment made about President Franklin Roosevelt, who died 65 years ago today. Every Democratic president from Truman to Obama has believed it, and each has used FDR's New Deal as a model for expanding the government.

It's a myth. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression—not during the 1930s, and only in a limited sense during World War II.

--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 06:46, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Two years longer than it took you here on CP! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:13, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Do you now use or have you ever used petroleum products derived from off-shore drilling? If so, was it the product of drilling off-shore of the United States, or is your consumption limited to products from other nations, causing the mass-slaughter of wildlife only from foreign countries? If that is so, do you think you have a privileged position of some sort? Is it not your problem, as well as China's, Rob? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 00:30, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

RobS, I wrote a summary open note to some vandals. I also checked their response. They seem to think that some shoddy swiss cheese refutational "attempts" of my major articles that don't even do an adequate job where they do mention certain sections shows "machismo". I suppose if you want to be half a man you offer "refutations" that are rather spotty in their coverage and weak where they do cover portions of my major articles. The problem with such thinking is there is no such thing as 1/2 machismo. :) Half machismo winds up merely being material that is rather childish. I also notice they made no mention of refuting my homosexuality article which we both know they cannot do. conservative 03:38, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks. Oh, hey, I found my phone. Give me a call. Evenings after 6:30 MDT are best. If you need the number again, I can email it. Rob Smith 02:07, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

I will contact you concerning a Conservapedia Anti-Communism Project unless you would prefer to do a Conservapedia Anti-Socialism Project. conservative 22:20, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

I am glad to hear that you are soon beginning phase II of the Conservapedia Anti-socialism Project which is putting in the red links which will give an excellent outline the articles needed. I have some ideas concerning implementing additional phases which I will allude to as phases III, IV, and V which we can discuss at a time of your convenience. By the way, there are some excellent and interesting projects that Conservapedia could certainly do concerning the topics of Richard Dawkins, evolution, and atheism which would be great to implement and perhaps we can discuss those as well. conservative 00:36, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Any particular reason you removed "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, from the "Further Reading" section on the John Birch Society page?

Griffin has been a prominent JBS member since the 1960's, having written books and articles, as well as producing videos and touring on the JBS Speakers Bureau over the years. As one of the key and best known writings by a JBS member in the organization's history, the book is quite relevant to the topic, and I see no reason to remove it.

ConsChris 15:49, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

American Media is the Birch Society evidently. I may have acted too hastily. Sorry about that. But that same cite probably should not go into the Federal Reserve Board page where it's been reverted in the past. Thank you. Rob Smith 23:04, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Is it OK if I put the book back on the JBS page? Thanks. ConsChris 00:53, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Hi Rob, --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk promised me that he would help me out with my article on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and I was waiting for him, but he hasn't helped me out yet. When I first created this article, which by the way was my first article, I sent BenjaminS, who welcomed me to Conservapedia, a message, but he hasn't responded nor helped me out either, so I'm going to ask for help to you and a few other Conservapedia users on my new article about Arizona's controversial immigration law because I'm tired of waiting for them to help me. So far, I’ve been the sole contributor of the article I created. So far, I believe that there might be 4 things that needs to be fixed, which I need some help as I mentioned above.

1) The U.S Immigration Policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section needs to be expanded a bit more and probably the Questions for Liberals section as well.

2) The page numbers in parenthesis on the Summary of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section might need to be updated so that it can more accurately what part of the bill is summarized. The source of the summary assumes that the bill is 17, not 16 pages long. I read the bill and I see that the page numbers are not really accurate. You can delete the page numbers if you think it should, but I still think the page numbers are useful for the summary.

3) The language or tone of the article might need some change.

4) Anything else I might not have mentioned and noticed

It's time for other people to help me out and soon before people completely lose interest on the controversial law. Again, some help would be appreciated. Also, I would like to make a youtube video about the new article I created to encourage people to read the law and educate themselves on it. Anyway, thanks for your time. Willminator 14:55, 8 June 2010 (EDT).

Rob, Conservapedia is going to be launching something soon to gain some conservative grassroots support and some new editors. If you could add the socialism terms when you have some free time for the Conservapedia Anti-socialism Project, it could certainly be very good timing. I think we can both agree that it would be great to crush the over ripe melon of internet socialism.  :) conservative 21:10, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

I saw that you did some editing on the article about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. While I do believe that the Obama administration's horrible practices both before and during the spill have to be discussed in the article, the intro of the article now contains no information about the oil spill itself except a tertiary mention of the name of the rig. Can we add back the information that was in there before? (The date it began, the amount of oil leaking, etc.) ChrisGT90 22:48, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm going to tentatively add it back. The information about mismanagement of the problem doesn't have any context unless you say what the problem is. Before removing the information again, please explain your reasoning here, on my talk page, or at the talk page for the article. ChrisGT90 17:28, 20 June 2010 (EDT)

I know we've disagreed on this, but I've been thinking about that one sentence in the intro: "Oil began leaking at a rate later estimated at 2.5 million gallons per day, resulting in massive environmental degradation." I feel the sentence should read "Oil began leaking at an estimated rate of 2.5 million gallons per day, resulting in massive environmental degradation." My thinking is that the intro paragraph should present the basic facts in concise manner, and the rest of the article can elaborate on them more. Even though initial leak estimates may have been zero, those estimates were wrong. Oil was leaking at 2.5 million gallons per day for the whole time, even if they didn't figure it out at first. Later in the article in can mention that initial estimates were that no leaking occurred, and the 2.5 million gal/day wasn't discovered until later. Also, the current version of this sentence still make it sound like the estimate was made after the leaking had stopped, which would make it less reliable than just sticking a device on to measure the leak rate while it's happening. ChrisGT90 13:22, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

I know we've disagreed on this, but I've been thinking about that one sentence in the intro: "Oil began leaking at a rate later estimated at 2.5 million gallons per day, resulting in massive environmental degradation." I feel the sentence should read "Oil began leaking at an estimated rate of 2.5 million gallons per day, resulting in massive environmental degradation." My thinking is that the intro paragraph should present the basic facts in concise manner, and the rest of the article can elaborate on them more. Even though initial leak estimates may have been zero, those estimates were wrong. Oil was leaking at 2.5 million gallons per day for the whole time, even if they didn't figure it out at first. Later in the article in can mention that initial estimates were that no leaking occurred, and the 2.5 million gal/day wasn't discovered until later. Also, the current version of this sentence still make it sound like the estimate was made after the leaking had stopped, which would make it less reliable than just sticking a device on to measure the leak rate while it's happening. ChrisGT90 14:03, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

The oil began leaking at an estimated rate of zero barrels per day, revised to 1000 barrels a day 24 hours later, revised 5000 barrels per day 9 days later, revised to 20,000 barrels per day three weeks later, revised to 60,000 barrels per day two months later. All this is a big part of the story, the story of poor judgement, incompetence, misinformation, and cow-towing to big oil political contributors. Rob Smith 16:00, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Okay. If that's what happened, then it is pretty important. Is that information included elsewhere in the article? ChrisGT90 13:23, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

I beleive so. Rob Smith 16:26, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

That is the reason BP so wanted to put that short-term cap on the well...to preclude accurate measurement of the leak, upon which their ultimate fine will be based, the barrels-per-hour rate. And yes, it certainly is a big deal! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:43, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

I know I have utilized the left side of the main page to promote various matters relating to atheism, evolutionism, and creation science, but my main page involvement is going to go down after today. I am quite pleased with web traffic the articles in these subjects enjoy and now I think future growth to these group of articles will largely happen through the overall growth of the Conservapedia domain traffic as a whole. From this point on, although I may tweak the popular articles at Conservapedia section of the main page and mention any big happenings in the atheism/Christianity/evolutionism/creation arena, I think my left main page involvement is going dramatically down. Please don't feel as though you are stepping on my toes should you wish to make dramatic changes to the left side of the main page. The only thing I ask is try not to be too politically correct on the left side of the main page. :). conservative 14:32, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Ok, thanks. Rob Smith 15:59, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Got some feedback from a sysop. The sysop was wondering now that Joaquin is not so active and left main page and I will be less active except for big creation/evolution/Christianity stories, who will be doing left main page edits more and what should be on left main page. Since I seem to have a knack for finding interesting pictures (current pic of dogs, recent fire pic, etc) and for certain newsworthy times like the rosy North Dakota employment rate news, etc. etc. , I have been asked for my two cents on the left main page.

Here is my advice: Keep the popular articles at Conservapedia section, keep the evolution section since that is a "liberal sacred cow" we seem to be poking well with the creation science cattle prod :) , but have more politics with pictures on the left main page. Here is how you find interesting public domain pictures at flickr: http://www.askdavetaylor.com/how_to_identify_public_domain_creative_commons_photos_flickr.html I would also recommend this site for public domain pictures as long as the person does not mark it as private: http://photobucket.com/ I really think politics is going to be a big issue for at least 3 years as the SS Obama ship goes down in terms of the economy and the new Republican or even third party person replaces Obama. Of course, maybe things will change and I will get more interested in politics so maybe I will get more active on left side of main page. conservative 22:15, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

I think this is a real good resource so I would leave it up on left main page somewhere: http://www.conservapedia.com/Resources_for_leaving_atheism_and_becoming_a_Christian Alternatively, you could use link instead: http://www.conservapedia.com/Resources_on_becoming_a_Christian Ideally have both links on left main page. Also, once in a while for nostalgia sake trot out this picture on the main page since certain quarrelsome gentlemen are quite fond of this pic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/  :) conservative 22:40, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

I thought you might be interested in this - Tracking conservapedia main page views and other page views from early on: User:Conservative/Conservapedia-running-stats-all conservative 21:59, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Rob, great work on the main page. It appears as if some liberals are upset with so much reality in terms of data that you have provided via the reputable sources you cite. :) They want the result of Obama's policies to result in this, but instead we have this. conservative 17:48, 23 September 2010 (EDT)

Revamping the left main page by adding important current trends and information was very helpful to our readers. Human Events may have noticed and they just mentioned Conservapedia. I just posted this as news item: Human Events, a leading conservative news website, mentions Conservapedia.[17] conservative 07:25, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Hi Rob,

Could you possibly delete/lock the pages created by the latest vandal?

Hope your weekend is going well.

--Benp 14:54, 9 January 2011 (EST)

Hey, Rob, is there any way you could lock down account creation for a while? I'm trying to block the latest vandalanche, but the guy's persistent, and I have to go do other things pretty soon...

--Benp 15:36, 9 January 2011 (EST)

https://www.google.com/accounts/Login?hl=en&continue=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dgoogle.com%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a

Thanks much for the headline, Rob, but we feature that one already on the left side. Sorry for the necessary revert ....--Andy Schlafly 15:18, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Actually, your link is different and adds more information. So I left it up just as you posted it.--Andy Schlafly 15:21, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

Can you delete Talk:King carbom hydrate‎? It was created by a vandal. DMorris 21:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)