User talk:YankeeDoodleDandy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!
Welcome sign.jpg

Hello, YankeeDoodleDandy, and welcome to Conservapedia!

I am a contributor named DavidB4. I see you have already started editing, and I just want to say hello and offer any assistance you might need! Also, we have some guides which might help you get started and learn your way around if you need them.

Useful links

Please take a look at our rules when you get the chance. You also might want to look at the Guidelines of editing and collaborating here.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Also we have a community portal where you can ask general questions, introduce yourself, or just comment. If you do post messages, please sign them by placing "~~~~" at the end of each one.
Thanks for joining our community, YankeeDoodleDandy! We look forward to working with you!
--DavidB4 (TALK) 17:52, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

Hello DavidB4 I believe there has a mistake I am not new to conservapedia, but I appericate your warm welcome. Thank you so much. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

Oh, my apologies! I thought it seemed like you had been around for at least a little while now, so I was surprised you hadn't been greeted. It looks like you've been editing for almost a year! Anyway, your account has been promoted to bypass the challenge question, so congrats! --DavidB4 (TALK) 00:01, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

It's okay we are only human. Not a big deal. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2020 (EDT)

How can you be sure?

Maybe the liberal communist Vladimir Putin secretly identities as a woman. We don't want to be accused of bigotry. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:09, 10 April 2020 (EDT) This is Conservapedia where we acknowledge people are made in the image of God, as well where their gender. Plus Putin is a Christian who supports Trump. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Putin supports Trump? Your new category is a hairs breadth from being nuked. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:19, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Excuse me? I believe you are mistaken. There is nothing wrong with my category, is a scientific fact, and a conservative belief.--YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I don't really see the practical purpose of such a category...Are our readers ever going to want to find every single article we have on men? Why? --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:25, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Seconded. Looks like an attempt to sow needless division, controversy, and a waste of time. Probably should be nuked in the bud. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:43, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
(ec} No. According to the commie lib pro-science dominant culture, a man can really be a woman. What planet do you live on? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:26, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

First of all there is already a women category, I don't really see this category page as a problem, its really for organizational purposes. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I'm not certain we should go down this path of with 57 categories, Category:Non-transgender binary neutral etc. with endless debates over whether someone was miscategorized. Cat:Women was created in 2007; perhaps we should revisit if that should remain. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:36, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

I believe it should as conservatives we understand there are only two genders. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Agreed, but our content already makes that clear. I don't know if it is helpful to add a burden to the organizational system in an attempt to further make that point. I'm not strongly opposed to it, I just don't really see the benefit. We have MANY articles on individuals, and if we do this, thousands of articles must be updated with "men" and "women" categories. Unless we make a concerted effort, these categories will probably just fall by the wayside (as "women" has) and just be excess baggage that no one sees, uses, or cares about (except for search engine spiders). --DavidB4 (TALK) 13:53, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Okay I see your point.--YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Here's my take: there's nothing inherently wrong with having such a category, and it doesn't matter how woke commies feel about it. If they decide to complain about it, at least we will get free publicity, which means potentially more page views! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:02, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

Thank You Liberaltears for agreeing with me, but may I ask could everyone please take this conservation out of my user talk page, there is a talk page for the category itself, and that is where this conservation should be. --YankeeDoodleDandy (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2020 (EDT)

You're welcome YankeeDoodleDandy! Also, speaking of free publicity, you guys should check out this great debate I started! --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:18, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
The downside is, it provides ammunition to liberal commies to accuse CP of bigotry for only recognizing two or three genders (can't think of a single hermaphodrite bio we have}, unless we acquiesce to allowing 57 ad infinitum gendered categories in the future. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:21, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Does it really matter that much if liberals try to smear CP? RAT*****Wiki already did that, and that wasn't the end of this site. <joke>Besides, ammunition would do liberals no use if they don't have firearms to utilize it. That is, unless liberals are hypocrites who buy guns while advocating for gun control. Totally not like they are hypocrites.</joke> --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:39, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Also, I dunno if that many liberals recognize this site. And if they do and mention it in any way, more people would visit CP and see all our cool content! Especially since this is an important election year, it would be great if we got a ton more views for this page, this page, and this page. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:44, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
(ec} I'm just thinking of more pointless smears needing to be debunked. For example, we get no page views from Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube, and when we're labeled gender bigots, we won't even get the traffic from there to see that smear is bogus. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:48, 10 April 2020 (EDT)
Oh yeah, that is true. I see your point with that. --LiberaltearsYour reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe 14:57, 10 April 2020 (EDT)