Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Columbine High School Massacre

2013-05-05T16:08:40Z

Dvergne: Undo revision 1050798 by Joaquín Martínez (talk)

[[Image:Columbine.jpg|right|thumb|Grieving Columbine students]]
'''Columbine massacre ''' refers to a massacre by two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm</ref> who killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School, a [[public school]] in Littleton, [[Colorado]], on April 20, 1999.

Contrary to original press speculation, the killers were not anti-religion (Harris was Catholic, Klebold was a practicing Lutheran), or antisocial; nor did they seek out as victims [[Christianity|Christians]] and popular athletes. As evidenced by the propane bombs used in the attacks (capable of killing all 500 people in the cafeteria) the massacre was only for body count: the guns were only a grisly supplement for taking out stragglers. According to eyewitnesses and injured parties, Harris and Klebold shot indiscriminately, often not even looking to who they were shooting. The killers were [[Darwinists]]; they admired [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[natural selection]]. The killers planned their attack beforehand and investigators later found descriptions in their notes about their intentions to kill. One of the murders wore a T-Shirt displaying the text "NATURAL SELECTION" on the day of the massacre. However, it is also worth noting that Harris wrote many essays describing his ideal world where ALL humans are extinct: he had a great disdain for humanity as a whole.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/salon.htm</ref><ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref>

Klebold and Harris were said to have been have been inspired by [[Nazi]] ideology: they appeared to have intentionally performed the shooting on [[Hitler]]'s birthday, April 20th. However, in reality, the attack was planned for April 19th, the anniversary of the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]], which Harris based his attack plan on. Harris' unintentional conspirator, Mark Manes, his ammunition supplier, did not deliver Harris' ammunition until the evening of the 19th, rather than the morning of the 18th as planned, forcing the date to be moved to the 20th. Harris also announced his hatred for racists and Nazis in his journal.<ref>http://acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal/jindex.html</ref>

Politicians cited the massacre in their demands for greater [[gun control]], and congressional [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] held highly publicized hearings to pass gun control legislation. But gun control became an issue that hurt liberal Democratic presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] in 2000, causing him to lose the election by losing the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia, where the right to bear arms is valued. Since the 2000 election there have not been any significant political demands for gun control. [[Liberal]] [[Socialism|socialist]] filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] used the incident as the backdrop for an anti-gun rights propaganda piece, ''Bowling For Columbine'', which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary.
[[Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg|right|thumb|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the massacre, caught on Columbine High School's security cameras in the cafeteria shortly before committing suicide.]]
A moving photo gallery of the young students is available online.<ref>http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/memoriam.html</ref> Also online is the much-criticized official report of the massacre.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/TOC.htm</ref>

== Public Outcry ==
After the massacres, a fear and paranoia gripped the globe: teenagers were now a thing to be feared. Before the killers bodies were even found, the tabloid media had released several 'facts' about Harris and Klebold; namely, that they were goths, homosexuals, loners, members of the now-infamous Trenchcoat Mafia, wildly speculating on the amount of casualties, who the killers were (original reports suggested as many as seven). All of these were swiftly found to be untrue, yet some have persisted in the form of online gossip.

Dave Sanders, the only staff member killed in the tragedy, was only attended to three hours after being shot through the neck and heart: he died fifteen minutes later. Due to SWAT regulations, no paramedics could enter the building until the area had been secured. The SWAT department received harsh criticism, both from the media and the public.

== Notes & Myths ==
Cassie Bernall, often cited as being shot by Harris after being asked if she believed in God, was actually under a table praying before being brutally murdered. The famous ''Yes!'' quote can be attributed to Valeen Schnurr; a phone was still on call, and in the background, a man can be heard asking a girl if she believes in God, after which she promptly responded in the affirmative. A gunshot follows, but this was the other assailant firing down a hallway. Valeen Schnurr escaped with injuries to the chest, arms and abdomen. This much-publicized conversation, often attributed to Bernall, has caused serious debate and controversy, due to rumor and speculation setting in years before concrete evidence was released to the public. Schnurr's unconquerable Faith, even faced with death, has nevertheless inspired millions of Christian teenagers around the globe.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/salon.htm</ref>

Eric Harris displayed the typical hallmarks of a clinical psychopath combined with a violent sadistic streak. He may have also had a superiority complex, although this is debatable due to the feelings of low self-worth he displayed in his journal writings.<ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref> In the 'Basement Tapes', Harris describes how he knows how evil it is what he is about to do, but says it is 'inevitable'. This is strange for psychopaths, who usually attempt to justify their actions, no matter how arbitrary or irrelevant the excuse.

Dylan Klebold has been suggested as a suicidal depressive with suppressed rage, as he was usually shy and reserved, but prone to outbursts of extreme anger.<ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref> He also struggled with alcoholism and poor self-esteem. Oddly, his father, Tom Klebold, described how Dylan was anti-gun and a proponent of gun-control.

One of the most retold myths about Columbine is that Harris designed levels identical to his school (known infamously as 'The Harris Levels') on the violent video game DOOM, in order to plan and practice the attacks. However, the levels, which are available online, are of a hockey rink and various arenas, and look nothing like an American high school: they are regular deathmatch stadiums, typical of most first-person-shooter games.

== See also ==
*[[Public school culture]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]
[[Category:Education]]

Muammar al-Gaddafi

2013-05-05T16:02:12Z

Dvergne: Undo revision 1050797 by Joaquín Martínez (talk) I think lunatic and terrorist are too categories that Gaddafi defs fell int

[[File:Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi in Dimashq.jpg|thumb|right|200px|"Leader and Guide of the 1969 Revolution."]]
Colonel '''Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi''' ([[Arabic language|Arabic]]: معمر القذافي, b. 1942 - d. October 20, 2011) was the Head of State of [[Libya]], a [[socialist]] and [[leader]] until the 2011 [[Libyan War|Libyan civil war]]. He rose to power through a coup that he led in 1969, and he ruled Libya for more than forty years ending with his capture and death. Once he became the leader of Libya, he renamed all the months in the calendar and published the Green Book, which was a series of pamphlets on democracy, economics, and sociology.

==Rise to power==
In the 1970s, Gaddafi attempted to assume the leadership of a pan-Arabic movement, a position left open by the death of President [[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] of [[Egypt]]; however, other Arab nations mostly ignored him. He attempted to extend his influence in Africa by supporting [[Uganda]]'s [[Idi Amin]] in the [[Uganda-Tanzania War]] with military aid and equipment, including [[Tupolev Tu-22|Tu-22]] jet bombers. In the 1980s, Gaddafi became a sponsor of [[terrorism]] and President [[Ronald Reagan]] ordered a retaliatory bombing of his palace and key Libyan targets (Operation El Dorado Canyon). (In August 2003, Libya agreed to pay $2.7 billion to families of the 270 killed on board flight 103, when it blew up in December 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Just six months after the settlement, Qaddafi was visited by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Tripoli.) <ref> [http://www.nndb.com/people/641/000026563/ Muammar Qaddafi.] </ref>

==Relations with Israel and Palestinians==
Gaddafi was a lifelong enemy of [[Israel]] and under his reign Israel was not recognized by Libya. He also expelled Palestinian Arabs from Libya.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/05/world/libya-s-leader-urges-other-arab-countries-to-expel-palestinians.html</ref>

==Renounces terrorism and restoration to the international community==
[[File:Cockpit Nose section of Clipper Maid of the Seas.jpg|thumb|250px|Cockpit of Clipper "Maid of the Seas" (Pan Am 103).]]
In the 1990s, Gaddafi changed course and severed all ties with terrorism to normalize relations with the West. He formally renounced terrorism in a letter to the UN Security Council in August 2003 and publicly condemned [[al Qaeda]] for the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=P95pldoe_hgC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=muammar+qaddafi+religious+tolerance&source=bl&ots=We02LNtRVy&sig=ICqlN8kClfhziphrdOZASO9DQeU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lq8rUYe8CIn7igLh9YBo&ved=0CDMQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=muammar%20qaddafi%20religious%20tolerance&f=false Islamic Peacemaking Since 9/11,] Volume 31 (Google eBook), David R. Smock, Qamar-ul Huda, DIANE Publishing, 2009.</ref>

In 1999, the Libyan government surrendered two Libyans suspected of involvement in the Pan Am 103 bombing, leading to the suspension of UN sanctions. On January 31, 2001, a Scottish court seated in the Netherlands found one of the suspects, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, guilty of murder in connection with the bombing, and acquitted the second suspect, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhima. Megrahi's conviction was upheld on March 14, 2002, but an appeals hearing was granted in June 2007 by the Scottish High Court.

UN sanctions were lifted on September 12, 2003 following Libyan compliance with its remaining UNSCR requirements on Pan Am 103, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation. Libya paid compensation in 1999 for the death of British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, a move that preceded the reopening of the British Embassy in Tripoli, and paid damages to the families of the victims in the bombing of UTA Flight 772. With the lifting of UN sanctions in September 2003, each of the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 received $4 million of a maximum $10 million in compensation. After the lifting of U.S. IEEPA-based sanctions on September 20, 2004, the families received a further $4 million.

On November 13, 2001, a German court found four persons, including a former employee of the Libyan embassy in East Berlin, guilty in connection with the 1986 La Belle disco bombing, in which two U.S. servicemen were killed. The court also established a connection to the Libyan government. The German Government demanded that Libya accept responsibility for the La Belle bombing and pay appropriate compensation. A compensation deal for non-U.S. victims was agreed to in August 2004. U.S. victims continue to pursue their claims in federal court.

By 2003, Libya appeared to have curtailed its support for international terrorism, although it may have retained residual contacts with some of its former terrorist clients. In August 2004, the Department of Justice entered into a plea agreement with Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in which he stated that he had been part of a 2003 plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah (now King Abdallah) at the behest of Libyan government officials.

In 2005, the Saudi Government pardoned the individuals accused in the assassination plot. During the 2005 UN General Assembly session, Foreign Minister Shalgam issued a statement that reaffirmed Libya's commitment to the statements made in its letter addressed to the Security Council on August 15, 2003, renouncing terrorism in all its forms and pledging that Libya will not support acts of international terrorism or other acts of violence targeting civilians, whatever their political views or positions. Libya also expressed its commitment to continue cooperating in the international fight against terrorism. On June 30, 2006, the U.S. rescinded Libya's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism.

In 2006 the BBC reported, the "decision of the US to restore full diplomatic relations with Libya marks the crowning success of his efforts to have his country accepted back into the international community." <ref> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3336059.stm</ref>

U.S. [[Secretary of State]] [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led war on terror. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News).</ref> Full diplomatic relations with the United States were restored in 2006, and the Gaddafi regime's turnaround has been heralded by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a model for others to follow.
[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|300px|Nobel Peace Prize winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi.]]

==Relations with Africa==
===Brother in arms with Nelson Mandela===
[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] speaking of the values he shares with Gaddafi, said,
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between South Africa and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

==Domestic affairs==
[[File:Schoolboys chant pro-Gaddafi slogans Reuters.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Schoolboys chant pro-Gaddafi slogans, Photograph: Reuters.]]
The Libyan people thrived under his leadership. A delegation of medical professionals from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus wrote in an appeal "Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort".

"China is a different kind of competitor. It is a rising economic power and America is unable to stop it. It has an unprecedented human wealth. In addition, it is a nuclear-weapon state and a permanent member of the Security Council. Everywhere in the world, China is making economic, human and political inroads. Unlike America which unwisely has chosen the harsh military approach, China is making those inroads using soft power. America continues its brazen interference in the internal affairs of states in the name of democracy and human rights. Africom is a case in point. Such interference is no longer acceptable. America itself is condemned in the field of human rights. It makes a habit of taking losers as allies... America is aware of the danger China poses. [http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/cat_1_11.htm China..America..The inevitable Confrontation.]"

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

==Capture and murder==
Gadafi was brutally murdered by [[NATO]]-armed and -equipped [[jihad]]i rebels during [[President Obama]]'s "humanitarian intervention" in the [[Libyan War of 2011]].<ref>http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/corbett-gaddafi-murder-shows-hypocrisy-of-nato-humanitarian-intervention/</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://www.nndb.com/people/641/000026563/ Muammar Qaddafi.]
*[http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/muammar-qaddafi/ Muammar Qaddafi.]
*[http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm Official web site.] {{dead link}}
*[http://israelstreams.com/?israelinsider.html?http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Diplomacy/4062.htm Gadhafi ready to compensate Jews who fled Libya.] Israel Insider.
*[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142593 Qaddafi is Jewish and I'm His Cousin.]

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Al-Gadafi, Muammar}}
[[Category:Libya]]
[[Category:Africa]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Fair use

2013-05-05T13:19:13Z

Dvergne: /* See also */ Not on article /page (freedom of paranoia) that is

[[Image:Flowers bloom in the Rose Garden.jpg|thumb|220px|White House Pic]]
'''Fair use''' is a doctrine in the United States [[copyright]] law that permits copying of someone else's works without asking permission; there are rules when it applies. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Other countries have similar provisions, called "fair dealing" in Britain, Canada and Australia.

The most common form of fair use is copying for educational purposes and without earning a profit. Another common type of fair use is news reporting.

Fair use is not needed when the material is in the "'''[[public domain]].'''" Facts are always in the public domain--they cannot be copyrighted (only the way they are phrased or the way they are selected and arranged can be copyrighted<ref>''Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.'', 499 U.S. 340, 348 (1991)</ref>).
==U.S. law==
Fair use is established by this federal statute:

'''17 U.S.C. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use'''
 
:Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS §§ 106 and 106A], '''the fair use of a copyrighted work''', including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, '''is not an infringement of copyright'''.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
:: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
:: (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
:: (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
:: (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

: The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

''In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supercede the objects, of the original work.'' (Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (1841))

Courts almost never rule against fair use for educational uses. The exception comes when the goal is to avoid students' buying multiple copies of a textbook or similar item.

==Right of fair use==
Most commentators have considered fair use a "right" (Federal law refers to "the right of fair use")<ref> see section 108 of US Code at [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf]</ref>. , so the debate is not on abolishing it but on limiting its applicability. Some large copyright owners, especially those associated with the commercial music and film industry, argue that fair use should not be used with their products. "There is constant tension between those who argue that the fair use defense should be expanded, allowing the use of copyrighted works for free with no strings attached, and those who want to shrink the definition so they can more profitably exploit their copyrights, trademarks and patents," concludes Hollywood reporter Brooks Boliek.<ref> Brooks Boliek, "'Fair use' folk confront Hollywood," ''The Hollywood Reporter'' Sept 13, 2007 online at [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ib5be56a7498cb10ef3497d7273981da1]</ref>

Many scholarly groups have explicitly emphasized that fair use is a valuable right. "It is the policy of the Special Libraries Association to reaffirm the right of fair use."<ref> see [http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/governance/Policies/35-89.cfm]</ref> The Association of Research Libraries argues, "In order for copyright to truly serve its purpose of 'promoting progress,' the public's right of fair use must continue in the electronic era."<ref> see [http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/fair_use_electronic.shtml]</ref> Official humanities groups like the American Council of Learned Societies, a consortium of the main scholarly societies in the humanities and social sciences, says, "The right of fair use is central to scholarship and the scholarly community and it should be embraced boldly."<ref> [http://www.humanitiesebook.org/copyrts.html]</ref>

In industry, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), led by Microsoft, Google, the Linux Foundation and Yahoo, argues that "is the very foundation of the digital age and a cornerstone of our economy." The Copyright Alliance, an umbrella group that represents the broad range of copyright owners; its executive director Patrick Ross said the CCIA is missing the point, saying, "There is no fair use without original creative works. Period....It is like trying to imagine a librarian without books. All those who embrace fair use must understand this and support creators who are producing the works they so prize." The copyright industries have their own numbers, claiming that in 2005 they accounted for about 11% of the GDP, or $1.38 trillion. Boliek reports that, "The entertainment industry has long used this economic contribution as a reason for the White House, lawmakers and regulators to back policies that benefit it. Those arguments have helped it win the battle for increased anti-piracy efforts, tougher laws that target infringement and for beneficial trade policies."<ref> Brooks Boliek, "'Fair use' folk confront Hollywood," ''The Hollywood Reporter'' Sept 13, 2007 online at [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/business/news/e3ib5be56a7498cb10ef3497d7273981da1]</ref>
===Plagiarism===
Fair use, public domain and copyight are legal issues under federal law in the U.S. The UK, EU, Canada, Australia and Japan have similar national laws. [[Plagiarism]] is not a legal matter. Plagiarism (deceitfully taking credit for someone else's writing) is severely punished by schools and the academic world, whether or not the material was copyrighted.

== Images ==

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images to illustrate a non-profit work qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional original works cannot themselves be copyrighted in the U.S. according to the rule in ''Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp''.

In Conservapedia, a tag like the following one should be placed accompanying the image in question.

{{Fair use
|source = <source>
|author = <author>
|reasoning = <reason>
|usableonuserpage = no
|usernotes = <optional:user notes>
}}
==Public Domain==
Fair use does not apply to items that are in the "[[public domain]]" because there is no copyright holder, but physical access to the works may be controlled by a museum that does not allow reproductions. Texts and images published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. Work created by the federal government is in the public domain (but not work created by state of local governments). Before 1976 copyright expired after 28 years and had to be renewed; items that were not renewed are in the public domain.<ref> For a list of renewals see the Project Gutenberg collections at [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=11800], which cover everything except music.</ref> Items that were published in the USA but never copyright in the first place are in the public domain in the USA. Items posted on web servers in the U.S. are covered only by American law.
==Rationale==
The U.S. Constitution's copyright clause allows a work to be copied in the public interest (to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts") without the permission of the copyright holder. Since the primary purpose of copyright is to foster the dissemination of knowledge rather than to protect the property rights of the creator, U.S. courts decided users could make "fair use" of a creator's work in the interest of promoting knowledge, so long as the impact on the creator's rights was not too great. Over the years the courts established factors to be weighed when judging whether a use was fair in any particular case. From the 1940s to the 1970s, when protection of property rights became progressively less important to judges compared to the promotion of other social interests, the courts broadened the definition of fair use. Therefore scholars had few problems quoting or photocopying reasonable amounts from the published works of others. Fair use doctrine is also supposed to protect free speech by preventing copyright holders from denying critics the right to quote from that which they are criticizing.

However newer court decisions have limited the right of scholars to quote from unpublished sources, such as private diaries or letters held in an archive, allowing the copyright owner to censor interpretations it does not approve.<ref> Michael Les Benedict, "Historians and the Continuing Controversy over Fair Use of Unpublished Manuscript Materials." ''American Historical Review'' 1986 91(4): 859-881. Full text: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28198610%2991%3A4%3C859%3AHATCCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R in JSTOR]; Michael Les Benedict, "Copyright I: 'Fair Use' of Unpublished Sources," ''AHA Perspctives'' (April 1990) online at [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1990/9004/9004NOTE1.cfm]; Kathleen K. Olson, "First Amendment Values in Fair Use Analysis." ''Journalism & Communication Monographs'' 2004 5(4): 159-202. Issn: 1522-6379 </ref> Patrick Parrinder argues, "Without the act of quotation there is little possibility of free discussion, rational debate or open reporting. Direct and acknowledged quotation is essential to scholarship since it provides both quoter and quotee with a guarantee against misrepresentation."<ref> Patrick Parrinder, "Quote unquote" ''Textual Practice'' 14#1 (2000) p. 138 </ref>

== See also ==

*[[Public domain]]
*[[Conservapedia:Copyright]]

== External links ==
* Stanford University Libraries. [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/index.html Copyright FAQs]]
*[http://englishhistory.net/tudor/art.html FAIR USE - PUBLIC DOMAIN]
*[http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code.]
*[http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Fair use - U.S. Copyright Office.]
*[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf ‘‘Stop Online Piracy Act’’.]

==Further reading==
* Stephen Fishman. ''The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Copyright-Handbook-Every-Writer-Needs/dp/1413308937/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236919652&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Mary LaFrance. ''Copyright Law in a Nutshell'' (2008)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Copyright]]

Talk:Essay: Atheist funeral

2013-05-04T16:56:01Z

Dvergne: Created page with "??? Is all i can say, barely an article at all ~~~~ '''Delete''' # ~~~~ '''Save''' '''Other'''"

??? Is all i can say, barely an article at all [[User:Dvergne|DickV]][[User_talk:Dvergne|Come say g'day ay]] 12:56, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Delete'''
# [[User:Dvergne|DickV]][[User_talk:Dvergne|Come say g'day ay]] 12:56, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Save'''

'''Other'''

User:Koreansman

2013-05-04T16:42:45Z

Dvergne: Created page with "{{Useful links}}"

Columbine High School Massacre

2013-05-04T16:34:47Z

Dvergne:

[[Image:Columbine.jpg|right|thumb|Grieving Columbine students]]
'''Columbine massacre ''' refers to a massacre by two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SUSPECTS_TEXT.htm</ref> who killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School, a [[public school]] in Littleton, [[Colorado]], on April 20, 1999.

Contrary to original press speculation, the killers were not anti-religion (Harris was Catholic, Klebold was a practicing Lutheran), or antisocial; nor did they seek out as victims [[Christianity|Christians]] and popular athletes. As evidenced by the propane bombs used in the attacks (capable of killing all 500 people in the cafeteria) the massacre was only for body count: the guns were only a grisly supplement for taking out stragglers. According to eyewitnesses and injured parties, Harris and Klebold shot indiscriminately, often not even looking to who they were shooting. The killers were [[Darwinists]]; they admired [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[natural selection]]. The killers planned their attack beforehand and investigators later found descriptions in their notes about their intentions to kill. One of the murders wore a T-Shirt displaying the text "NATURAL SELECTION" on the day of the massacre. However, it is also worth noting that Harris wrote many essays describing his ideal world where ALL humans are extinct: he had a great disdain for humanity as a whole.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/salon.htm</ref><ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref>

Klebold and Harris were said to have been have been inspired by [[Nazi]] ideology: they appeared to have intentionally performed the shooting on [[Hitler]]'s birthday, April 20th. However, in reality, the attack was planned for April 19th, the anniversary of the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]], which Harris based his attack plan on. Harris' unintentional conspirator, Mark Manes, his ammunition supplier, did not deliver Harris' ammunition until the evening of the 19th, rather than the morning of the 18th as planned, forcing the date to be moved to the 20th. Harris also announced his hatred for racists and Nazis in his journal.<ref>http://acolumbinesite.com/eric/writing/journal/jindex.html</ref>

Politicians cited the massacre in their demands for greater [[gun control]], and congressional [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] held highly publicized hearings to pass gun control legislation. But gun control became an issue that hurt liberal Democratic presidential candidate [[Al Gore]] in 2000, causing him to lose the election by losing the traditionally Democratic state of West Virginia, where the right to bear arms is valued. Since the 2000 election there have not been any significant political demands for gun control. [[Liberal]] [[Socialism|socialist]] filmmaker [[Michael Moore]] used the incident as the backdrop for an anti-gun rights propaganda piece, ''Bowling For Columbine'', which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary.
[[Image:Eric harris dylan klebold.jpg|right|thumb|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the massacre, caught on Columbine High School's security cameras in the cafeteria shortly before committing suicide.]]
A moving photo gallery of the young students is available online.<ref>http://www.acolumbinesite.com/victim/memoriam.html</ref> Also online is the much-criticized official report of the massacre.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/TOC.htm</ref>

== Public Outcry ==
After the massacres, a fear and paranoia gripped the globe: teenagers were now a thing to be feared. Before the killers bodies were even found, the tabloid media had released several 'facts' about Harris and Klebold; namely, that they were goths, homosexuals, loners, members of the now-infamous Trenchcoat Mafia, wildly speculating on the amount of casualties, who the killers were (original reports suggested as many as seven). All of these were swiftly found to be untrue, yet some have persisted in the form of online gossip.

Dave Sanders, the only staff member killed in the tragedy, was only attended to three hours after being shot through the neck and heart: he died fifteen minutes later. Due to SWAT regulations, no paramedics could enter the building until the area had been secured. The SWAT department received harsh criticism, both from the media and the public.

== Notes & Myths ==
Cassie Bernall, often cited as being[[Category:example]] shot by Harris after being asked if she believed in God, was actually under a table praying before being brutally murdered. The famous ''Yes!'' quote can be attributed to Valeen Schnurr; a phone was still on call, and in the background, a man can be heard asking a girl if she believes in God, after which she promptly responded in the affirmative. A gunshot follows, but this was the other assailant firing down a hallway. Valeen Schnurr escaped with injuries to the chest, arms and abdomen. This much-publicized conversation, often attributed to Bernall, has caused serious debate and controversy, due to rumor and speculation setting in years before concrete evidence was released to the public. Schnurr's unconquerable Faith, even faced with death, has nevertheless inspired millions of Christian teenagers around the globe.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/salon.htm</ref>

Eric Harris displayed the typical hallmarks of a clinical psychopath combined with a violent sadistic streak. He may have also had a superiority complex, although this is debatable due to the feelings of low self-worth he displayed in his journal writings.<ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref> In the 'Basement Tapes', Harris describes how he knows how evil it is what he is about to do, but says it is 'inevitable'. This is strange for psychopaths, who usually attempt to justify their actions, no matter how arbitrary or irrelevant the excuse.

Dylan Klebold has been suggested as a suicidal depressive with suppressed rage, as he was usually shy and reserved, but prone to outbursts of extreme anger.<ref>Columbine (Dave Cullen)</ref> He also struggled with alcoholism and poor self-esteem. Oddly, his father, Tom Klebold, described how Dylan was anti-gun and a proponent of gun-control.

One of the most retold myths about Columbine is that Harris designed levels identical to his school (known infamously as 'The Harris Levels') on the violent video game DOOM, in order to plan and practice the attacks. However, the levels, which are available online, are of a hockey rink and various arenas, and look nothing like an American high school: they are regular deathmatch stadiums, typical of most first-person-shooter games.

== See also ==
*[[Public school culture]]

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]

[[Category:Education]]

Talk:Exergonic Reaction

2013-05-04T14:58:46Z

Dvergne: Created page with "~~~~"

[[User:Dvergne|DickV]][[User_talk:Dvergne|Come say g'day ay]] 10:58, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:TerryH

2013-05-04T14:50:36Z

Dvergne:

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.
[[File:Breaking sound barrier.jpg|center|300px]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Ragnar Danneskjöld ==

I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.

There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Could you please check [[:Category:Speedy_deletion_candidates]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:56, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

== CNAV account ==

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic for Conservapedia talk pages:

I have tried to create a CNAV account with the username GregG. I was told that my password would be sent to the e-mail address I provided on the registration form, which is my e-mail address. I never got that message. I also tried to have a new e-mail sent at least once (yesterday), but still I received nothing. Could you take a look into this? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:51, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
: I just sent a message to the e-mail I have on you. Now so far I haven't gotten any delivery-failure notices. But if you don't get a message within the next three hours, then you must have put in the wrong e-mail address.

== Interesting news ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=997411#ArbCom_bans_the_chairman_of_Wikimedia_UK – This news might interest you. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:03, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ – Fox News is now paying attention. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 14:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

== Go Question Evolution! USA! USA! USA! USA! ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/our-north-america-initiatives-are.html Creationist benchmark is hit and exceeded in the United States]

[[Creation Ministries International]] breaks through key USA key benchmark! The first Question evolution! sound barrier has been breached. Watch the campaign grow faster and faster and faster. USA! USA! USA! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:19, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

[[File:Sound barrier.jpg|center|200px]]

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:24, 25 November 2012 (EST)

== "Obamacare Dead on Arrival" -- very poor judgment in my opinion ==

Please see [[Talk:Main Page#"Obamacare Dead on Arrival" -- very poor judgment in my opinion]]. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:10, 2 January 2013 (EST)

== Boston ==

Really think boston story should be on top. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 07:52, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

== Good Idea ==

It might be a good idea to make sure that when you link to articles from headlines that link to your blog (which is a whole other matter entirely, also having issues commenting on your stories, can you look into it) that the links actually link to an article. I have had to fix this up a number of times and would have thought a wiki user of your length of time would make sure this sort of issues do not occur. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 08:14, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article and General protection idea/proposal ==

The [[homosexuality]] article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with '''edit''' and '''sysop''' rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

== Issues with your blog ==

I have been having a few issues with leaving comments on your blog, could you please look into it ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:50, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Ed Poor

2013-05-04T14:49:01Z

Dvergne:

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki>
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== On Personal Attacks ==

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules."

:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Hey Ed ==

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

==Tehpwn3r==
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

== Randall7 ==

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
==Michael Baumgartner==
Dear Mr. Poor,
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

== My condolences ==

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Sun Myung Moon ==

You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting Assistance ==

Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==

I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

==[[Objections to evolution]]==
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== Quote Templates ==

I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

==[[Unificationism]]==
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]

Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy.

:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)

== Way to stop the spammers ==

From Aschlafly's talk page
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:

require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
$arr = array (
"A question?" => "An answer!",
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );
}
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''

: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.

If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)

:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)

== Hello ==

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Mass Wedding ==

I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)

== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==

I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.

== Math ==

Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.

The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent [[Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable]]. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: ''Your audience for this essay is just yourself.'' All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.

Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff ([[Regular_space]], [[Sequentially_compact]], [[Hausdorff_space]], ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you ''not'' to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.

Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.

Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is ''impossible''. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."

So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.

Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.

One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.

And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

::You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on [[Limit (mathematics)]], [[Algebra]], [[Compass and straightedge]], and [[Cramer's rule]]. ''These are all topics that I studied in high school'', and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.

In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the [[Kolmogorov space]] article. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.

In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.

I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

== Carbon Dioxide ==

I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

:It did. See my subsequent edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Understanding Islam ==

Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: [[Islam and tolerance]]. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

== Reminder ==

Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:: Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

==Christian Chivalry==
I redirected your article on [[Christian chivalry]] to the already existing page [[Chivalry]] since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-)

:I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to [[Chivalry]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

==[[Talk:Gun control#New Infographic]]==
As you are one of the main contributors to the [[Gun control]] page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

:I'm interested in describing both sides in the [[Firearms debate]]. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

==fnarrow's reply to your terms==
I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger.
<blockquote>[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] look at the final interaction between myself and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrow
</blockquote> btw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

:Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fnarrow ==

Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
:(this is [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]], I'm using [[User:JSandler|John(jsandler)'s]] phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]] 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
::Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

I unblocked your username. Someone else seems to have unblocked your IP address; I don't know how to do that.
I'll leave your user and talk pages as C left them - ask him if he wants them undeleted. I'm just unblocking you, in light of your promise to chill out and be more focused on articles.

Please start the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page, and I'll join in. Thanks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:I think we can do that although I am not good with wikis. From what i Understand, Libertarians are conservative when it comes to economics, gun ownership, small government, defence etc but are closer to liberals on other social issues. The way I understand it, libertarians believe the law should protect person and property, but go no further than that. I will do some research in the next few days, write a beta copy and forward to you for review/editing if thats ok

::Excellent, Patmac. I'll add that to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article and General protection idea/proposal ==

The [[homosexuality]] article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with '''edit''' and '''sysop''' rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:New Liberal Ideas of the 21st Century

2013-05-04T14:27:17Z

Dvergne: Created page with "Wow four tumbleweeds, how innovative. Liberals have made a number of new ideas in the 21st Century. Most of them have been how to fleece taxpayers out of even more money so they ..."

Wow four tumbleweeds, how innovative. Liberals have made a number of new ideas in the 21st Century. Most of them have been how to fleece taxpayers out of even more money so they can pursue their own stupid and pointless ambitions and also how to lie more. Suggest delete as liberals have clearly come up with some new ideas this century (albeit some absolute stinkers) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:27, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Delete'''
# [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:27, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Keep'''

'''Rename'''

Muammar al-Gaddafi

2013-05-04T14:21:43Z

Dvergne:

Mou'amar el-Khadhdhaffy

2013-05-04T14:20:33Z

Dvergne: Redirected page to Muammar al-Gaddafi

#REDIRECT [[Muammar al-Gaddafi]]

Adam Lanza

2013-05-04T14:15:53Z

Dvergne:

'''Adam Peter Lanza''', perpetrated the [[Sandy Hook Massacre]]. He was addicted to violent [[video games]], which incited his ruthless murdering of 20 young schoolchildren and his own mother. Adam Lanza did not actually have a criminal record, nor any infraction with law enforcement.

==Early Life==
He was a student at the school for a short time, but was then transferred to St. Rose of Lima Catholic School, and then Newtown High School, where he was an honours student in English and Mathematics. His mother reportedly considered [[homeschooling]] him, but decided to send him to public school instead.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/adam-lanzas-mom-pulled-school-relative/story?id=17985433</ref>

==Mental Issues==

Allegations that Adam Lanxa suffered from a mental illness are unsubstantiated.

Students and teachers who knew him in high school described Lanza as "intelligent, but nervous and fidgety". He avoided attracting attention and was uncomfortable socializing, and was not believed to have had any close friends while at school. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/adam-lanza-an-enigma-who-is-now-identified-as-a-mass-killer.html?smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=0</ref> His brother, told law enforcement that Adam was believed to have a personality disorder and was "somewhat [[autism|autistic]]"<ref>http://www.phillyburbs.com/ap/national/ap-source-conn-shooter-ryan-lanza-s-mom-worked-at/article_df1fba83-1927-5d5a-99c9-262bd499cad4.html</ref>. An anonymous law enforcement official, who was friends with his mother, Nancy Lanza, stated that he had been diagnosed with [[Aspergers]], previously.

==Knowledge of firearms==
Close friends of his mother, have testified that Nancy Lanza was an adamant gun enthusiast, possessing several guns. <ref>http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/friends-newtown-gunmans-mother-home-schooled-son-kept-arsenal-of-guns/</ref><ref>http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/adam-lanzas-mother-was-an-avid-gun-collector.html</ref>. She often took her two sons to a local shooting range, taught them, in particular Adam, how to shoot, in the hope that it would teach him some responsibility.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Crime]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Adam Lanza

2013-05-04T14:15:08Z

Dvergne:

British Inventions

2013-05-04T14:13:33Z

Dvergne:

The British people have been the most inventive people in history. Almost all of the important inventions of the nineteenth and twentieth century have been invented by the the British.

'''Military'''

[[RADAR]]

The [[Tank]]

The [[Bouncing bomb]]

[[Optical landing system]] for aircraft carriers

'''Technological'''

[[Television]]

[[Computer]]

The [[Telephone]]

[[Stereo]]

The [[iPod]]

The[[ Lightbulb]]

The [[Electric motor]]

[[World Wide Web]]

[[Photography]]

'''Industrial'''

[[Industrial revolution]]

[[Steam engine]]

[[Assembly line]]

[[Spinning Jenny]] yarn producer (Hargreaves)

[[Safety lamp]] (Davy)

'''Communications'''

The postage stamp

The pencil

Christmas cards

Shorthand

'''Transport'''

[[Passenger train]]

[[Jet engine]]

[[Cat's eye]]

The [[Marine chronometer]]

The [[Hovercraft]]

Pneumatic tyre

[[Composite ship]]

'''Agriculture'''

[[Seed drill]]

'''Sports and pastimes'''

[[Soccer]]

Lawn [[Tennis]]

[[Squash]]

[[Badminton]]

[[Cricket]]

[[Rugby]]

[[Golf]]

[[Tiddlywinks]]

[[Snooker]]

[[Billiards]]

Rounders

'''Food and Drink'''

The [[Sandwich]]

Cornish pasty

"Marmite"

The 'fry up'

[[Category:England]]
[[Category:Technology]]

Kish

2013-05-04T14:12:46Z

Dvergne:

Kish is the name of five men mentioned in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.weseejesus.com/bibledictionary/kish.html</ref>

1. The son of Abiel a descendant of the tribe of [[Benjamin]] and father of [[Saul]], king of Israel. 1 Samuel 9:1,3; 1 Samuel 10:11,21 etc. He is called "Cis" in Acts 13:21.

2. The son of Jehiel, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin. 1 Chronicles 8:30 & 9:36. (Probably an uncle of #1.)

3. The son of Mahli and grandson of Merari. 1 Chronicles 23:21,22 & 24:29.

4. The son of Abdi, a descendant of Merari. 2 Chronicles 29:12.

5. An ancestor of [[Mordecai]]. Esther 2:5.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Bible]]

Rule 34

2013-05-04T14:12:19Z

Dvergne:

'''Rule 34''' of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] is a rule that governs the production of documents and the inspection of property in [[discovery]].

==Text==
(a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):
:(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control:
::(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or
::(B) any designated tangible things; or
:(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
(b) Procedure.
:(1) Contents of the Request. The request:
::(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;
::(B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection and for performing the related acts; and
::(C) may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.
:(2) Responses and Objections.
::(A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.
::(B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.
::(C) Objections. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.
::(D) Responding to a Request for Production of Electronically Stored Information. The response may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form—or if no form was specified in the request—the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.
::(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
:::(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
:::(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
:::(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(c) Nonparties. As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to permit an inspection.

==External links==
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_34 Rule 34 at Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Rule 11

2013-05-04T14:11:57Z

Dvergne:

Rule 11 of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] requires papers filed with the court to be signed by the party submitting them or his or her attorney. It also provides for sanctions to be assessed against a party that makes a [[frivolous]] factual or legal argument.

==Text==
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
:(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
:(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
:(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
:(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
:(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
:(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
:(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
:(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
:(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
::(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
::(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
:(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions under Rules 26 through 37.

==External links==
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 Rule 11 at the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Port Jackson

2013-05-04T14:11:28Z

Dvergne:

'''Port Jackson''' is the official name of what is known to the world over as Sydney Harbour.

It is a fine natural harbour, untroubled by silting as it is not the estuary of a major river, and is a safe haven for shipping no matter the weather. Its foreshores define the world’s vision of [[Sydney]] – the Sydney Opera House and Sydney Harbour Bridge are as iconic a backdrop as views of [[Rio de Janeiro]], [[San Francisco]] and [[Cape Town]].

Its entrance was sighted by [[James Cook]] in his voyage up that coast in 1770 and named after the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (a sort of 18th century British JAG. ) Cook didn’t dally and it was left to a minor flotilla of ships’ boats sent to discover its suitability as a harbour when the [[First Fleet]] realised that its initial landfall in [[Botany Bay]] was unsuitable for settlement. The foundation of modern Australia was founded 26th January 1788 when the British flag was raised at Sydney Cove (now Circular Quay) on its southern shore.

[[Category: Australia]]

RAF

2013-05-04T14:11:02Z

Dvergne:

'''RAF''' has more than one meaning.
*[[Royal Air Force]]
*[[Red Army Faction]]

[[Category:Military]]

Origination Clause

2013-05-04T14:09:28Z

Dvergne: add cats

The '''origination clause''' is a part of the United States [[Constitution]]. Found in Article I, section 7, the clause reads as follows:

{{cquote|All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.}}

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Talk:Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant

2013-05-04T14:08:35Z

Dvergne: Content already in OWS article - propose for deletion as essentially a stub with content elsewhere

This article should be deleted as it doesn't really add anything to the project and the content is already in the main [[Occupy Wall Street]] article (the entire article is in there (the OWS article) pretty much word for word) [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:08, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Delete'''
# [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:08, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Keep'''

'''Wait and See'''

Talk:Atheism

2013-05-04T03:13:19Z

Dvergne: /* Does an atheist conservative have any place here? */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
 
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013

==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

== North Korea and Laos ==

Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

== Suggested fixes ==

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

== Atheism and education ==

Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

-antibias

== Autism ==

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::::KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] by [[C.S. Lewis]] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Evidence for Christianity]. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.
:::::Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

How is the term "conservative atheist" an oxymoron? Conservative and Christian are not synonyms. Chloe Smith, the MP for Norwich North is one example of an Athiest Conservative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099971/Defiant-Speaker-vows-prayer-ban-Commons.html
--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
::Individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, freedom from heavy tax burden, right to bear arms, and freedom of religion don't seem to be exclusive to Christianity, why do you have to be a Christian to support any of that? You don't need to be a Christian to recognize that these principles are the cornerstone of the human condition, and promote the greatest success possible for a country. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?
::It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the [[oxymoron]] page is an oxymoron itself.--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Yeah... no. Osama bin Laden was a mixed bag of ideologies, and any attempt to pile him neatly into one camp or another will fail. Anyway, it would appear that the short answer to Katie's question would be no. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::We're all a mixed bag if we're going to be perfectly honest... I'd be willing to bet literally anything I own, assuming participant was somehow guaranteed to answer honestly, that in a double blind study no two editors on this site would give exactly the same answers to a given test of political/moral/social views and give the same "weight" to each topic's relative importance. No matter how conservative one claims to be, (or conversely, how liberal they are accused of being) everyone views the world slightly differently. There should be a place here for everyone who considers themselves conservative. Who are we to judge what is in another's heart? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:39, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
KatieKomori, you wrote: "With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know." That is because your so-called conservative friends are faux conservatives! See: [[Social conservatism]]. Second, you still haven't shown me that atheism is more traditional than theism. Atheists have always been a minority in the world - especially before the 1700s (see: [[Paul-Henri Thiry]]). And now atheists are shrinking as a percentage of the world's population. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. The [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]] is not traditional/conservative.

KatieKomori, you are a [[libertarian]] and not a [[conservative]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:48, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::Technically, atheism is more traditional because belief in gods has only existed for as long as the human species, probably even less. But that doesn't matter, even if atheism isn't traditional, my religious/spiritual views don't play a part in my political views. I am a libertarian, but I don't think that excludes me from being a conservative as well. I don't care about social conservatism because to be honest, it seems pretty worthless and pointless to me. What's actually important is the economic future of America, which is what's actually under attack right now. Maybe the liberals are succeeding because we're focusing on silly things like pornography and homosexuality...when there's REAL problems that need to be solved... [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::The family is a very fundamental until of society. It has big effects on other sectors of society including the economic sector. Atheists are often not very family oriented and the policies they advocate are detrimental to society: http://creation.com/atheism#marriage-and-divorce Family cohesiveness has a big effect on poverty levels: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/02/us/child-poverty-twice-as-likely-after-family-split-study-says.html

:::::Your evolutionary and long age views are wrong and that is why you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists: http://creation.com/15-questions or address these 101 evidences for a young earth: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::: Conserative, are you a member of a family unit ? Do you have a 'long haired creationist wife' and some creationist children ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:13, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Mitt

2013-05-02T11:54:42Z

Dvergne: that better jmr10 ?

#REDIRECT [[Mitt Romney]]

Talk:Mitt

2013-05-02T10:04:29Z

Dvergne: Blanked the page

Mitt

2013-05-02T10:04:19Z

Dvergne: Blanked the page

Brontotheriidae

2013-05-02T08:17:13Z

Dvergne:

{{Taxonomy
|name=Brontotheriidae
|image=
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Mammalia
|subclass=Theriiformes
|infraclass=Holotheria
|superorder=Preptotheria
|order=Perissodactyla
|suborder=Ceratomorpha
|infraorder=
|superfamily=Brontotherioidea
|families=
|family=Brontotheriidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|syn=Titanotheriidae
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=Extinct
}}
'''Brontotheriidae''' (Greek: βροντη, brontē + θήριον, thêrion; "thunder beast") is an extinct family of large mammals resembling [[rhinoceros]], which once lived in North America and Asia.

The brontotheres were named in part due to accounts of discovery of their remains by the Lakota Sioux in what is now the Dakotas and Montana of the United States; they had believed they were creatures who ran on top of the clouds, delivering rain and thunder on the plains.

==Description==
Characteristics shared by all brontotheriid species include an abbreviated face, an elongated postorbital cranium, and the outer shearing blades on the molars bearing a "W" or wedge shape<ref>http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/5913</ref>. Despite being members of Perissodactyla, all species had four toes on the front feet; the rear feet bore three.

The familiar species (''Embolotherium'', ''Megacerops'', etc.) were of large size, easily standing over eight feet at the shoulder with estimated weight of nearly four tons. The head bore horns on the snout made entirely of bone; unlike rhinos, these horns were side-by-side instead of one behind the other, and in some brontothere species the horns were fused into a bizarre "slingshot" or "battering ram" appearance. It has been surmised that the horns were used in combat between bulls during mating season.

==Evolutionary claims==
Brontotheres are claimed by [[evolutionists]] to have first evolved from ''Eotitanops'' during the late Paleocene 56 million years ago, and reached their peak in the late Eocene, 33.9 million years ago.

==References==
<references/>
*Osborn, Henry Fairfield. ''The Titanotheres of Ancient Wyoming, Dakota, and Nebraska''; Washington, D.C. United States Department of the Interior (1929)[http://archive.org/details/titanotheresofan02osbo]

[[Category:Perissodactyla]]
[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Prehistoric Mammals]]

User talk:Ed Poor

2013-04-29T13:30:15Z

Dvergne: /* Fnarrow */ new section

User talk:TerryH

2013-04-28T12:14:07Z

Dvergne: /* Good Idea */ new section

User:DonnyC/sandbox

2013-04-28T05:49:24Z

Dvergne: Undo revision 1049537 by DonnyC (talk)

'''Various predictions:'''

Give it up, liberals: the next Pope is likely to be Cardinal Arinze, an African leader as conservative as Conservapedia.
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&curid=123765&diff=1034181&oldid=1034156]

'''Behavior:'''

User:Conservative stalks editors around the internet: ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1035766&oldid=1035743 NKeaton, you wrote on another website: "I am a proud first generation Irish Catholic man, the brother of a Jesuit priest, and the kin of at least one Jesuit or Opus Dei priest per generation for many years." I can attest to you being proud. You know what the Bible says about being proud, don't you?]"''

LifeWay Christian Stores

2013-04-27T07:54:07Z

Dvergne: Better

LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention owns and operates 122 LifeWay Christian Stores throughout the United States , as well as two of the largest Christian conference centers in the country.
[[Category:Christian Organizations]]

Talk:LifeWay Christian Stores

2013-04-27T07:52:10Z

Dvergne:

Why is this article protected ? There is nothing controversial about it (apart from the fact it looks like an advertisement). According to the Conservapedia Commandments spam(and my inference advertorials) are not allowed. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:27, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
: You should unprotect it so it can be improved so it doesn't look like an advertorial anymore. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:33, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I unprotected it and removed the advertisement tone of the article. Why go out of your way to slap a template on a lot of articles when you can improve them in about the same time? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:26, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: I didn't put the spam label on it as I have absolutely no knowledge about these stores. I just saw it in recent changes, read the article and to me it looked a bit spammy. That is all I was pointing out mate .[[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 03:52, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Bankruptcy

2013-04-27T06:37:34Z

Dvergne:

'''Bankruptcy''' refers to [[statutes]] and judicial proceedings involving persons or businesses that cannot pay their debts and seek the assistance of the court in getting a fresh start. Under the protection of the [[bankruptcy court]], debtors may be released from or "discharged" from their debts, perhaps by paying a portion of each debt. [[Bankruptcy judges]] preside over these proceedings. The person with the debts is called the debtor and the people or companies to whom the debtor owes money are called creditors.

== See also ==

*[[Bankruptcy code]]
*[[Chapter 7]]
*[[Chapter 11]]
*[[Chapter 13]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Bankruptcy Law]]

Michael Fumento

2013-04-27T06:37:09Z

Dvergne:

'''Michael Fumento''' is the [[author]] of ''Science Under Siege'', which provides "evidence that many terrors of the day have been wildly exaggerated – even fabricated – by environmental activists, politicians, the bureaucracy, and the media." <ref>http://www.fumento.com/science.html</ref>

He attributes the anti-[[chlorine]] campaign of [[environmentalist]] groups like [[Greenpeace]] to [[Rachel Carson]]'s "lyrical tract" ''[[Silent Spring]]''.
<ref>[http://www.fumento.com/rachel.pdf Rachel's Folly: the end of chlorine]</ref>

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fumento, Michael}}

[[Category:Authors]]

User talk:Taj

2013-04-27T06:36:38Z

Dvergne: /* Lifeway Christian Stores‎ */ new section

<div style="position:absolute; z-index:100; right:10px; top:10px;" class="metadata">
{| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width: 140px"
|<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">
{{archivelink2|[[User talk:Taj/Archive|'''Archive''']]}}
</div>
|}
</div>
{{clear}}

'''For prior talk page conversations see archives, or click here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Taj/Archive archive].'''

----

 
''Taj is not at Conservapedia on a regular basis and may be unable to respond to talk page comments in a timely manner. Please contact another Administrator if your concern is urgent.''

 

== Lifeway Christian Stores‎ ==

Hi, just a question. Do you think that the article [[Lifeway Christian Stores‎]] looks a bit like an advertisement at the present point in time ? If so would you be able to un protect it, so it could be improved upon as I very much doubt that conservative will. However a more reasonable user such as yourself may be inclined to do so. Do you know my about [[Lifeway Christian Stores‎]]? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:36, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Talk:LifeWay Christian Stores

2013-04-27T06:33:03Z

Dvergne:

Talk:LifeWay Christian Stores

2013-04-27T06:27:37Z

Dvergne: Created page with "Why is this article protected ? There is nothing controversial about it (apart from the fact it looks like an advertisement). According to the Conservapedia Commandments spam(and..."

Talk:North Atlantic Treaty Organization

2013-04-25T13:14:06Z

Dvergne:

Should we make mention that France withdrew from NATO's military sctructure while remaining a part of the political arm? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's part of the history, so yes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservapedia? ==

This article is not written from a conservative view. It would be better to put it in Liberalpedia.--[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 09:07, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
: I agreee Libelpedia is a joke worse than wilipedia [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:14, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Mary7sarah

2013-04-25T13:12:54Z

Dvergne: Created page with "Stop spamming you will immediately now! ~~~~"

Stop spamming you will immediately now! [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:12, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

User talk:BobbyR

2013-04-25T13:11:39Z

Dvergne: Created page with "{{welcome}} I suggest you be a bit more civil than what you just wrotted on the talking page to conservatism ~~~~"

{{welcome}}

I suggest you be a bit more civil than what you just wrotted on the talking page to conservatism [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:11, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

Red state

2013-04-25T12:05:34Z

Dvergne: Undo revision 1048903 by MaryMary (talk)

In the [[United States]], a '''red state''' is a state in which a simple majority has voted for the [[Republican Party|Republican]] candidate in a presidential [[election]]. The term comes from the news networks, which in the 2000 presidential election decided to agree on one color to represent the Republicans and one for the Democrats in the states the parties won.

==Definition==
Voters in red states are considered generally more [[conservative]] as a whole than voters in other states. Red states are generally noted for a commitment to conservative [[Christian]] morality, [[abortion|pro-life]], family values, economic self-sufficiency, and a desire to reduce the [[tax]] burden, be sufficiently armed for self-defense, and reduce the degree of government intervention in their lives. This is opposed to, say, the liberal [[San Francisco values]] of the blue states. Red states are generally in the southern, western (except the Pacific coast), and midwestern [[United States]]. These states are also collectively known as the [[real America]].

==See also==
*[[Blue state]]
*[[Purple state]]

[[Category:United States Political Terms]]

M. Night Shyamalan

2013-04-25T08:02:14Z

Dvergne:

'''Manoj Nelliattu Shyamalan''', known as '''M. Night Shyamalan''' (born 1970 in India), is a [[movie]] [[director]] who burst to fame with his 1999 hit [[drama]] ''[[The Sixth Sense]]''. He is famous for films with dramatic plot twists, often based on the supernatural. Shaymalan is also known for appearing in his own [[films]] in a cameo role (or occasionally, a large role), and for almost every movie he makes being worse than the one before it.

The unusual middle name "Night" is a name he gave himself.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shyamalan, M. Night}}
[[category:directors]]

== Famous Works ==
*The Sixth Sense (1999)
*Unbreakable (2000)
*Signs (2002)
*The Village (2004)

== Devil (2010) ==
In 2010, the film ''Devil'', directed by famed American horror director John Erick Dowdle was released. Shyamalan both produced and wrote the film. The plot of the film revolves around a belief that the devil walks the earth, hunting those who have sinned, bringing them together and torturing them before killing them one by one. Despite warm reception from liberals, the film contains many gross religious inaccuracies.

User talk:Conservative/Message1

2013-04-23T10:25:53Z

Dvergne: Created page with "qearwzstxedfcvgnhj'; ujnhybk mbn,kiooubgyivfctrguiyonj bvgfutgihyuojn bvcfdrft67yhujn cfgtuighyun cfutviyuhmj nbvgfiyghuojm nbvgyhunjm k;knbhkiuyoni jknbvgfvyibonu jgvybu9nim jkn..."

qearwzstxedfcvgnhj';
ujnhybk mbn,kiooubgyivfctrguiyonj bvgfutgihyuojn bvcfdrft67yhujn cfgtuighyun cfutviyuhmj nbvgfiyghuojm nbvgyhunjm k;knbhkiuyoni jknbvgfvyibonu jgvybu9nim jknbjiuobinby9bupni jvb9y uij

User:Conservative/Message1

2013-04-23T07:46:15Z

Dvergne: Created page with ":)"

Talk:Homosexuality

2013-04-23T03:41:06Z

Dvergne: Still current - hey and stop deleting archives - very naughty thing to do mate

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Answering a question - sort of ==
''August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents?''

It may present factual evidence. But it is practically unreadable: One can only hope that Aschlafly will take this as an example for his upcoming course in [[Persuasive Writing]] and helps to improve it. Every time I try to read it, I stumble upon so many atrocities that I have to stop. But it has its magic - for me as a foreigner it highlights the many traps in which I often find myself caught!

{|class="wikitable"
|'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."
|no problem with this sentence
|-
|
'''Theories on how people become homosexual''' [[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be subsequently elaborated on. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will also be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality; this will also be studied.
|''these factors will be addressed shortly'' - ''will also be covered'' - ''this will also be studied'': Three times we are told that something is explained in the future. One time would be enough. And besides a repetition of actions, we see the same words popping up in such a short section: ''also'', ''matter'', ''factor'', ''effect'', ''individual'' and naturally ''homosexuality''.
|-
|
'''Biblical statements concerning homosexuality and secularism/homosexuality''' Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality: However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
|
*Bible or bible?
*Verses should be quoted in parentheses - the abundance of colons is irritating (especially when more than two sentences are linked in this way).
*''Also, Women [sic] may not speak in church'': ''also'' doesn't seem to be the right word to show that you don't subscribe to this sentence!
*The whole section is unclear, you should have divided it into two parts, one for the Old, the other for the New Testament!
*You should stick to one translation, NASB '''or''' NIV.
|}

Generally I don't criticize others for their writing: As I'm not a native speaker this could be seen as presumptuous (you like it when someone uses this word self-mockingly, don't you?) But here, so many flaws are obvious to me that I've to ask myself what I've missed because of my lack of knowledge!

I'm sure that I committed many of the atrocities of which I accuse you in my comments (even in this one) - but I'm not writing the flagship-articles in this encyclopedia. And my errors can be corrected easily: obviously the articles to which I contribute aren't locked.

I hope that my comments help you to improve your article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Regarding the flaws in this article and regular users not being able to edit it, that's the trouble with attempting to construct any reference or resource based off of a pre-formed ideology; a certain level of (rather blatantly undemocratic) censorship must be practiced in order to keep the project in line with its ideological goals.

::Certainly anybody with any significant experience dealing with gay friends/family members/co-workers/classmates/neighbors/employees can cite several fundamental flaws with this article and many of the other articles on conservapedia that relate to homosexuality. By rejecting mainstream psychological, biological, sociological, and anthropological consensus as resulting from the "liberal bias in academia" (which, trust me, does not actually exist), these articles must rely on fringe sources and exaggerated stereotypes.

::For instance, while gay and bisexual men do, on average, have a '''slightly''' higher number of lifetime sexual partners than straight men, the numbers are not nearly as high as many of the sources cited on Conservapedia claim them to be. For instance, in the United States the mean number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual males is pretty consistently estimated to be around 7 (this number does not change much across demographics--even evangelical Christian males average 7 partners in their lifetimes). Among MSM (the academic term for gay and bisexual men) in the United States, the average lifetime number of sexual partners ranges between 9 and 12 (depending on the conditions of the study). There are outliers in both groups, straight men reporting more than 100 lifetime sexual partners and MSM reporting similar statistics, but the relative incidence of this is roughly congruent between both groups. Assuming ~50 years of sexual activity for the average male over his lifetime (another, fairly consistent statistic), even at the high end, this means that MSM have one additional sexual partner '''per decade''' when compared to straight men. In light of the facts, the assertion that gay men are "dangerously promiscuous" is patently ridiculous.

::Finally, these articles all overlook the occurrence and cultural significance of MSM in history and non-Western cultures. I say MSM here because "homosexuality" is a rather recent Western cultural concept. In India, for instance, the "hijra" are a population that have existed for ''at least'' two thousand years. Hijra are biologically male, although some prefer to identify themselves as female (and, for them, the western term "transgender" may be the closest equivalent), but they constitute a "third sex" that conventionally takes the passive role in physical relations with nominally straight males. Additionally, the Hijra have an essential ceremonial function in many Hindu traditions (especially in northern India and in Bangladesh), and have historically been accepted as respected members of their communities. By Western standards, straight males who form physical relationships with hijra would be viewed as bisexual or homosexual. Another similar, and often cited, example is the "berdache" in the Zuni culture (many other Native American tribes have an equivalent)--these are men who occupy a social role that is a mix between the traditional male and female roles. Such people were often historically allowed to marry men occupying the traditional male role, and were often (but not always) accepted as important members of their communities. As another example, in early Christian societies (although it was predominantly a Byzantine phenomenon), ἀδελφοποίησις (literally, "brother making") has been interpreted as a form of consecrated same-sex union (this interpretation is, admittedly, somewhat controversial, but the academic consensus is that many of these unions were indeed romantic in nature).

::I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here. My general points are that homosexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies and that many gay stereotypes that are thrown around in conservative political discourse are not firmly grounded in fact. In my opinion, the conservative movement is better served by focusing on political values, such as individual liberty and economic sustainability, than attacking the individual liberties (or very existence of) a small minority of people. I am aware that this an unpopular notion among social conservatives, but there are many more significant issues facing the American people at this time (e.g. unemployment) than Tim and Larry up the street deciding to start a family. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:09, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Oops, my bad. I didn't mean to revert the talk page. Anybody know how to put it back?--[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:22, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:::RudrichBoucher, you wrote: "I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here." You screed of [[liberal wordiness]] lacked headings, bullet points and pictures! Given your past content at this [[wiki]], I most certainly did not read it!

:::By the way, see: "7 reasons why the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will be a boon to single women and a bane to homosexual activists" located [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-question-evolution-campaign-will-be.html HERE]. I hope that clarifies matters. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Homosexuality/archive5

2013-04-23T03:36:12Z

Dvergne: Created page with "Archives == Bible quote from New Testament insufficient == The Conservapedia page about homosexuality page quotes <blockquote> Romans 1:26-2..."

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Bible quote from New Testament insufficient ==

The Conservapedia page about homosexuality page quotes
<blockquote>
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
</blockquote>
but people forget that St. Paul continues in stronger wording
<blockquote>
Romans 1:28-31 In other words, since they would not consent to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behaviour. And so now they are steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite, libellers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents, without brains, honour, love or pity.
</blockquote>
and that St. Paul ends with the strongest wording in the New Testament on homosexuality, the verdict of God on homosexual behaviour:
<blockquote>
Romans 1:32 They are well aware of God's ordinance: that those who behave like this deserve to die -- yet they not only do it, but even applaud others who do the same.
</blockquote>
(verses are from the New Jerusalem Bible at www.catholic.org)
In my opinion however one should also bear in mind that the Bible forbids one to kill, but instructs us to love one another as we love ourselves. But one should keep in mind that God is master of life and death and He is allowed to kill, so we should not be surprised that homosexual behaviour ends up with getting HIV/Aids.
Furthermore the people I see before me when reading these harsh verses are the people with homosexual behaviour that want to have nothing to do with God and who actively promote this kind of behaviour, not the people who want to reunite with God and are searching for a way out of their behaviour.
But the lesson is that, unlike what many people are thinking, God condemns homosexuality in the New Testament, through the voice of St. Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ, as hard as in the Old Testament.
So perhaps the verses Romans 1:28-31, but at least the verse Romans 1:32, can be put into the Conservapedia page on homosexuality? Better be warned in time, than rue it when too late.

:There is a discussion on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality page on the same comment. Please join to keep the discussion balanced. [[User:Jgamleus|Jgamleus]] 01:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

==Gender Correction==
Dr. Nadia El-Awady is a female, but the pronouns used to refer to her are male pronouns.

== length of article ==

This article is very long, making it inconvenient to read. Most of the sections here seem to have their own pages. Editing is locked for regular users, so I can't do it, but has there been any discussion condensing the article to make it more reader-friendly? --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 16:25, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:I was actually thinking of adding some material: '''Black pastors confront [[Southern Poverty Law Center]] for smearing as ‘hate groups’''' pro-family organizations opposed to [[homosexual agenda]]. [http://americansfortruth.com/2012/01/16/press-conf-black-pastors-confront-southern-poverty-law-center-for-smearing-pro-family-organizations-opposed-to-homosexual-agenda-as-hate-groups/] Reverend Dr. Patrick Wooden declared that it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with [[homosexuality|homosexual]] perversion.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 26 January 2012 (EST)

::I fail to see how that, or much of this article for that matter, is pertinent to an explanation of the general concept of homosexuality. Reading through an article with 29 sections of text is just laborious. Especially when most of the sections appear to already have their own articles. This is one of the flagship articles here, making it so over the top that newcomers are discouraged from reading it might be counterproductive to the cause. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 23:23, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::Why don't you write an alternative article and see if the owner of the site likes it better? Show Conservapedia how it's done. I wish you the best should you decide to pursue this endeavor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 26 January 2012 (EST)
:::::I'll take that bet. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:06, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Can you show us outstanding well researched works you have composed already? If so, where are they? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 27 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::In journals you've never heard of and books you'll never read. More seriously, you have offered a friendly competition. It is audacious, but I accept your challenge. Out of sportsmanship, we should let the articles speak for themselves instead of starting an argument on the talk page. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 01:44, 27 January 2012 (EST)

I regret that so-called "conservatives" (as meaningless a term as "liberals") have been so easily fooled by the whole "homosex-/gay" fraud of degenerate fascist propaganda that enslaves not just the lawless fascist lamestream media and Demo-nazi ringleaders but most of the world as well
(sadly including most if not all Bible translations since the 19th century who have perverted the true meaning of arsenokoitai by grossly mistranslating it as "homosexual" which is a bogus word of the aforementioned degenerate fascist propaganda machine that didn't exist much before the 18th century, almost nineteen centuries after Jesus)
that is well-refuted and exposed as a propaganda fraud by "The gay invention" at http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f
Also relevant is Dr. Reisman's exposing of the vile fascist child-molesting degenerate Alfred Kinsey at www.DrJudithReisman.org showing how Kinsey has almost single-handedly (with much help from Indiana University) decimated America's morals jurisprudence by deceiving gullible politicians and judges over the past decades. Sadly all one must do is repeat lies often and long enough and fools will believe anything. [[User:RusseDav]] 09:52, 03 March 2012 (EST)

==Pediatricians Renew Call for HPV Vaccine for Boys==
*''The HPV vaccine has been available and recommended for girls and young women since 2006, because it's highly effective at preventing cervical cancer. Since then, other cancers thought to be caused by HPV have increased, including anal cancer and some head and neck cancers....If we include both girls and boys, we could have a potential impact on HPV transmission.'' [http://healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=662176]
'''Question:''' if homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice, why would ''all boys'' need to be vaccinated? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:06, 28 February 2012 (EST)
:'''Answer''' because HPV can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as well. Did you really need to ask that question? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 09:46, 28 February 2012 (EST)
::Homosexuality is a choice and it is a bad choice. See: [[Homosexuality and choice]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:05, 22 March 2012 (EDT)

==Bible Quotes==

I have noticed that this page has quotations of verse from multiple forms of the Bible, including the King James, New American Standard, and New International Bibles. Should we not stick to one single version, so as to preserve the validity of our quotations of scripture? [[User:TheV|TheV]] 08:37, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Which is the correct version?

== Homosexuality and human rights ==
I suggest to add section with above name on recent ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The interesting text reads like this:

"The Strasbourg ruling won praise from campaigners against same-sex marriage. ...

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. ‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law. ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society. ‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz1urjB46xx

Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html#ixzz1urhwV1gH Read more]

--[[User:AK|AK]] 16:04, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
::AK, the article is about 50 pages long right now. I would suggest creating a separate article that could be linked to from the main article. Here is where you could start creating the article: [[Homosexuality and human rights]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:32, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opinions? ==

I'm wondering if some of the content is too much based on opinions, such as the opinion that 'homosexuality' rather than homosexual acts are what is condemned by the Bible. I am very conservative and I found some of the content rather inflammatory, rather than objective. But that's just my impression of it, and I am new to Conservapedia.
--[[User:Nissalovescats|Nissalovescats]] 10:16, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

It is worrying that there are a lot of statements without any references that are drawing absolute conclusions. These need to be backed up otherwise this is opinion and not fact.

::What are your thoughts about the [[Homosexuality and health]] information? Also, what are your thoughts about the information in the [[Homosexuality and murders]] and [[Homosexuality and obesity]] articles? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:09, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

== homosexulality and religion: ==

it is a proven fact that jesus christ never spoke against homosexuality. in fact, jesus himself in all records of his life never once condoned those of different beliefs. hundreds of years after the death of christ, passages pertaining to the diminishment of the rights of women, the reasons for hatred against those of other or no religious beliefs, and the lessons that homosexuality is unnatural were added by people like Constantine and king James. if you feel you are a "true christian," then listen to the words of your lord savior, not a roman emperor who wasn't even born a christian.

:Whoever posted this (when i know not) was unsurprisingly anonymous, as it is clearly an absurd polemic. Not is this "red letter" hermeneutic that restricts Biblical moral teaching to only what Jesus said in the gospels invalid, but so it the argument from silence that it relies on.

:The Lord did not personally write any Scripture down, and the gospel of John promises more revelation from Jesus, (Jn. 16:12-15) and the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writers who wrote the Lord's words also inspired the O.t., which Jesus quoted as well as the rest of the writings which were because manifest as Scripture. And the fact is homosexual relations are only condemned wherever they are dealt with and are nowhere sanctioned, despite the laborious attempts by pro homosexual polemicists to force sex into passages it does not belong in. See [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

:Moreover, restricting morality to what Jesus specifically addressed would also allow pedophilia, bestiality and other things.

:Moreover, the Lord did condemn homosexual relations by specifying that what God sexually joined together was male and female, (Mt. 19:4-6) leaving all other sexual relations as fornication, and which He condemned. (Mk. 7:21-23)

:God made man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, in more ways than the physical aspect, and only joined them in marriage, which Jesus Himself specified. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4-6) Homosexual unions are only condemned by God in the Scriptures by design and decree, in principle and in precept.

:It is because of this that pro homosexual polemicists engage in sophistry in trying to negate the injunctions against homosexual relations and find sanction for the same, and the hermeneutics they must use would also negate any moral law, and the authority of the Scripture themselves.

:However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of God. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:21, 6 December 2012 (EST)

==New pertinent story==

Is the strong cultural focus on sex as a reproductive tool the reason masturbation and homosexual practices seem to be virtually unknown among the Aka and Ngandu? That isn't clear. But the Hewletts did find that their informants -- whom they knew well from years of field work -- "were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them," and, in the case of the Aka, had a hard time even understanding about what the researchers were asking when they asked about homosexual behaviors.

"Homosexuality and masturbation are rare or nonexistent [in these two cultures], not because they are frowned upon or punished, but because they are not part of the cultural models of sexuality in either ethnic group." http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

And note that pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness (Ezek. 16:49) was concomitant with Sodom which was given to fornication, including that of the most perverse sort. (Ezek. 16:50; Jude 1:7) [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 21:32, 6 December 2012 (EST)
:::Daniel1212, thanks. I can incorporate this into the article in 2013 or request that you be made a sysop. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:53, 29 December 2012 (EST)
::::Daniel1212, I added your material to the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:31, 29 December 2012 (EST)

== Why? ==

Why is "Conservative" so obsessed with homosexuality? [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 23:10, 28 December 2012 (EST)
:Am I? The burden of proof is always upon the claimant.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:48, 29 December 2012 (EST)
::Look at the number of articles on the topic you have authored. [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 09:52, 29 December 2012 (EST)
:::How many are there and when was the last one created? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 29 December 2012 (EST)
::::You can't count? [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 14:07, 29 December 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, which article you like better? [[Gay bowel syndrome]] or [[Homosexuality and MRSA]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:08, 29 December 2012 (EST)
::::::I see you still haven't made your case. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:16, 29 December 2012 (EST)
:::::::Adversus solem ne loquitor. [[User:BryanF|BryanF]] 17:31, 29 December 2012 (EST)
BryanF,

7 reasons why the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will be a boon to single women and a bane to [[homosexuality|homosexual]] activists. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-question-evolution-campaign-will-be.html]

Conquering [[evolution|Darwinism]] with the help of a key Christian organization and through collaborative efforts.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/12/conquering-darwiinism-with-help-of-key.html]

Have you heard of [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. I think you may have it.

[trolling removed][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:59, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Holden

2013-04-22T03:45:47Z

Dvergne:

'''Holden''' (General Motors Holden) is an [[Australian]] [[automobile|automotive]] manufacturer that is owned by [[General Motors]]. <ref>Holden.com.au</ref>

[[Category:Automobiles]]

Debate:Is free market economics possible in actual practice?

2013-04-21T04:36:59Z

Dvergne: Yes - no point in debating - no edits or views in ages

User talk:RJJensen

2013-04-21T04:33:46Z

Dvergne: /* Nice edits */ new section

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:14, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

[[/Archive 1]]
==Trinity==
You reverted my edits to the Trinity page, with the comment "The Trinity is Christian". I was a bit baffled by this, but then realized that I had used the Torah as a source. The Torah is just the Old Testament, and is part of the Christian Bible. I did not realize that my language would be so confusing (I am used to it, my parents converted from Judaism to Baptist Christians). You will find that much of the Hebrew Bible (The old Testament) supports Christian concepts. This is because Christian concepts are universal truths!

Haha, yeah the rain has been murderous all week long! I had the misfortune of planning to drive into Athens today, only to find all the roads underwater! I didn't realize until you messaged me that my talk page has the info intended for my user page, so thank you for your inadvertant help (also, yes, it appears my grammar died while I was writing it!) Are you from the area as well? Always good to meet a fellow southerner who understands the Obama Crisis. There are so many hayseed liberals down here it makes me sick! Don't worry tho, you won't hear me crying out for a confederate south:) Long live a STRONG CONSERVATIVE UNION, with a surplus export of integrity! [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 20:33, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
::thanks for the update. I'm actually a Yankee now living in Montana, but I have had a strong interest in the South since I studiesd with C. Vann Woodward some years back.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:36, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I can forgive a Yank, I used to be one (Mt. Vernon, Washington)! Unfortunately, that town's Conservative fervor lives solely in the words of one Glenn Beck (that man's done for intelligent conservatism what Sean Penn did for photographers dentistry.) [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 20:45, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Now, what kind of a snide insult is that? Beck is a thoughtful, honest fighter for the conservative cause, and if people are angered at the government by his exposés, all the better for the nation. Both he, and those of us who respect him, are intelligent people. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:59, 21 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Forgive any intrusion or stamping upon your own loyalties. But surely you must admit that the movement suffers from a lack of Irving Kristol or William Buckley type figures. I long for the days when conservatism nakedly confessed that the intellectuals were the brains of the movement while the power of the people were its fists. OF COURSE a weapon must be weighted properly, with the correct balances, but it is only in retrospect that people might discuss its craftsmanship and the components which constituted it. I would venture to say that anyone slain by Excalibur would comment on anything but the sharpness of its blade, which in this most basic analogy, would comprise the incisive wit of conservatives who have lived and then gone to meet God in heaven. The fires of anger burn with intense heat in the belly of American conservatism, but to stoke these fires, as Beck often does, produces little but flash and smoke. It will be some current or future leader, a Reagan-type, I pray, who shall light his torch with such a flame and bring it to the halls of Congress or to the Obama home and say, "See, this same flame has burned for ages now let it singe you!". God, conservatism, the side of moral right; all are the same, and united they are all consuming. But it must take SOMEONE...a prophet, a politician who does God's work, a priest with God's word in him...someone, SOMEONE must carry that torch. [[User:RoyP|RoyP]] 21:15, 21 September 2009 (EDT)

== Quakerism category ==
Thanks for setting it up! I'll try to contribute a few more new articles to insert. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:20, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

== "Revert vandalism" on the Chavez article ==

Does [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hugo_Chavez&curid=5224&diff=703420&oldid=703401 this edit] really count as "vandalism"? Or would it be more fair of you to qualify it as a different point of view? A point of view that may be criticized, perhaps, one that may or may not be backed up by whatever evidence is cited--but where is the "vandalism"? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 08:44, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::it's vandalism--it was designed to attack and denigrate and damage a CP article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:10, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Introducing a different point of view--with a citation, no less--is denigrating and damaging to the article? Is the article that fragile? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 10:25, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::that was his goal. to sabotage the article by making it contradictory. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 10:38, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
::::Would it not add to the credibility of the article and the site as a whole to engage with the ideas that the editor brought to the table on their own merits--or lack thereof-- as opposed to dismissing them as vandalism? [[User:Wayne|Wayne]] 12:16, 25 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::vandals seeking to weaken or ruin articles are not welcome here. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:20, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

== speedy delete? ==

[[Nonlineardog]]

== Dear Dr. Jensen, ==

i think your edits are far above the average quality here. I am quite liberal (and not American), so i don't always agree with your opinions, however i enjoy to read your articles, since they are written in a quite concise and interesting manner from the right distance of view and i usually learn something about topics i don't know much about.

Regards, --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:45, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Why did you revert my edit calling for a citation? [[User:AZF|AZF]] 17:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::you're making work for other people; if you want to add a citation please do so. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:14, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::The person who made the initial assertion was making work for other people. [[User:AZF|AZF]] 17:19, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Columbia==
In the 1872 painting; are you sure she holds a school book? Might it be the Bible?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:03, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
::my students always ask that--it says "School Book" on it. you can read it at [http://cprr.org/CPRR_Discussion_Group/2005/11/question-american-progress-by-john_11.html larger image] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Thank you, a beautiful picture btw.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:13, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

== Milton/Paradise Lost ==
1st of all, thanks for the encouragement on my talk page. We now seem to be sort of collaborating on the Milton and PL pages. I came across some public-domain images of Blake's watercolors for PL that would be great to add to that page. How do we go about making that happen? [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 17:58, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
:yes--it's fun! I can upload files if you gove me URL's or email to me at rjensen@uic.edu [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
::Here is the site: http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/Paradise/Blake1808.htm [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 20:09, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
:::OK which ones do you want to use? 04:45, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
::::So hard to choose! I think "The Expulsion from Eden" (Book XII) is essential for the PL article. If there is room, my next choice would be "The Downfall of the Rebel Angels" (Book VI), and then "The Temptation of Eve" (Book IX). [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 11:24, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
::::: done: see File:Blake-xii.jpg File:Blake-vi.jpg and File:Blake-ix.jpg [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:19, 31 October 2009 (EDT)

::Hi. Would you mind uploading http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Cary_Grant_in_To_Catch_a_Thief_trailer.jpg for [[Cary Grant]] or giving me permission to do so? Thanks! [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 16:05, 14 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Never mind, Jpatt did it. :) [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] 16:57, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== William, Mary, etc. ==

Hello Richard;

Just noticed you doing some 17th century history - could I ask for a bit of a hand getting William of Orange's article up? He doesn't have one, at the moment, I think, and 'William and Mary' redirects [[College of William and Mary|here]]. Thanks, and nice articles. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 14:45, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::look at [[William III]]. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:16, 1 November 2009 (EST)
::::Pesky Stadtholder ... ;) [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 15:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)

== DerekE ==

Just because someone is a "nasty vandal" is no need to erase every sign of his presence from the website. That's a tactic that might have been appropriate for the great Soviet Encyclopedia. I fail to see how it's suitable for an America conservative project. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 19:49, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::DerekE -- or someone using his account-- has tried to seriously damage CP (look at the edits a few minutes ago on Obama Administration). That destroys his entire credibility from A to Z, in my opinion. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:58, 3 November 2009 (EST)
:::That doesn't answer my question. removing a talk page post--in effect trying to make him a "non-person"--has nothing to do with the situation you describe. We've always been at war with East Asia. [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 20:02, 3 November 2009 (EST)
::::we don't want saboteurs at CP and we remove their work. It's like a team changing the record book when an illegal player is involved. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:17, 3 November 2009 (EST)

==Scotland Revert==

Hello, i noticed you reverted an edit by DWiggins on the scotland article, saying in the edit description that "civilized world seems to cover the reaction pretty well". I've undone your edit as it was biased and misleading, if the "civilized world"(could you specify what the civilized world is?) universally thought it was disgusting, why was there so much controversy? perhaps from an american perspective but outside of the states "disgust" doesnt cover it at all, unless you meant to imply that the civilized world is solely the USA, in which case all credibility of claims about conservapedia being fair or trustworthy are lost. also, please dont ban me, i'm just trying to bring some balance and i dont mean to troll, but as im scottish it annoys me when people try and spin the lockerbie story, thanks. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 09:13, 4 November 2009 (EST)
::there was very high controversy regarding 1) wisdom of releasing a convicted terrorist and 2) role of the London government in trading convict for diplomatic and trade goals. And yes, worldwide disgust was pretty intense. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:23, 4 November 2009 (EST)

== John F. Kennedy ==

I responded to your argument on the John F. Kennedy talk page. You should go check it out. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 13:31, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== John F. Kennedy (again) ==

I added a new section re: Medicare to our Kennedy discussion on the JFK talk page.

I would really like for you to respond to the slew of points I raised re: Kennedy's liberal positions and traits. I believe they extend far wider and deeper than the article or your arguments suggest they do. In reading what I wrote and responding to it, I would like for us to work together to re-consider and re-write the parts of the article that discuss John F. Kennedy's ideological bend. Certainly, we can together reshape this article to reflect that he both advocated dramatic liberal measures and made conservative stands on certain issues that no modern-day liberal would ever dream of considering. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 20:02, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::thanks I appreciate the help and i will look at it later tonite. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:19, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:::I responded to your arguments. I am still hoping we can re-write this article together, and show that Kennedy was a diverse politician with both liberal and conservative views (and one that is hard to accurately describe as "basically liberal" or "basically conservative"). [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 21:28, 8 November 2009 (EST)
::::the current text says "JFK was middle-of-the-road on domestic issues and conservative on foreign policy" which does seem to sum it up. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)

==Robeson==
Hi, I'm trying to stay within Conservapedia's guideline but did find the article riddled with povs and language that is unsourced. His own actions speak for themselves and don't need nudging. I tried to emphasis the Communist affiliations and advocacy while referencing to the aspects of his life that were patriotic.
The article is too small for someone of such importance plus there is word that he is going to be given a Presidential medal of freedom posthumously so the facts should be straight.
[[User:AmandaC|AmandaC]] 21:52, 19 November 2009 (EST)
::yes, good work. He's anathema to conservatives and the article needs to explain why. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:09, 20 November 2009 (EST)

== large bill ==

No problem, they've always fascinated me. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 04:25, 26 November 2009 (EST)

== large bill ==

No problem, they've always fascinated me. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 04:25, 26 November 2009 (EST)

== Unlock [[Sedition Act]]? ==

You locked the page nine hours after it was created, it's been locked for almost a month now, and it badly needs some work. Right now, there's little more than a dictionary entry. I'd like to add some information about the history of sedition acts, examples (from other countries than America), why they've been passed, examples of how they've been used and abused, and at least some idea of popular objections to them. If you want to add more, I'd love to see it. I won't add my uncited opinion, which I'm guessing is why you locked it in the first place. (If I'm wrong, please let me know.) If you have another idea of what the page should be, I'd love to talk about that - I'm sure we both agree it'd be best with something more than is there now.

And, by the way, [[Talk:Sedition Act]] is currently a redirect to [[Talk:Sedition_Act_of_1918]]; you might want to fix that and move the current debate.

Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 21:42, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::Ok I unlocked it. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:13, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== Sin ==

What's with the large scale removal from [[Sin]]? Admittedly, it could be made more concise, but dropping sections and removing key redemptive fact like "Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God's offer of forgiveness, can we be saved from sin" seems a bit odd. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:38, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::there was lots of stuff there unrelated to sin as ordinarily understood. The "trusting in Jesus" statement is a sermon and is hanging loose, not tied to any of the many traditions that are covered in the article. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:00, 12 December 2009 (EST)

== William Safire ==
Why did you edit the Safire article to say he was a token conservative? The commandments state all information must be true and verifiable. The reference provided does nothing to substanciate your claim that Safire was a token conservative at the NY Times. For this reason your edit should be removed until a reliable source is provided. I have been unable to find one that is suitable. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 12:54, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:: 1) I did not make that edit. 2) But what it means is that for many years he was the only conservative voice on op-ed (and the editorial page was very liberal). 3) it's common knowledge of the sort you get by reading the NY Times every day. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:20, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::My apologies. That being said, it shouldn't matter if something is common knowledge or not, the reference provided does not state Safire was the alleged token conservative at the Times. According to the commandments all entries must be true AND verifiable. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 19:21, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Islam ==

So is there any reason why you removed sourced material from that article and replaced it with vandalism?
--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 10:58, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::it was a bad source and needed fixing. don't be insulting.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:37, 22 December 2009 (EST)

==America the Beautiful==

You mean I was actually [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Empire_of_Liberty&diff=prev&oldid=736869 right] about something? Ssh! My friends at Wikipedia would faint if they knew! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 24 December 2009 (EST)
::well Ed I think you're usually right! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:28, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== "The Honorable" ==
I was merely requesting that "the Honorable" be added because I noticed that about half of the Justices pages possessed the title and roughly half of them did not. I thought since it was the proper title for a Judge it might be a good idea to place them on the pages that did not have them.
::none of the articles on justices should start that way. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:09, 6 January 2010 (EST)
:::You'll have to fix Clarence Thomas, it's locked. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:13, 6 January 2010 (EST)

== Headline text ==

==
== Headline text ==
==

== thanks for the chart on atheism, it was very helpful ==

Thanks for the chart on atheism, it was very helpful to the article. The only reason why I removed it as it was blurry but you fixed that issue using a larger display size. I put the chart next to the section on atheist population that was already in the article and the chart nicely complements that section. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:11, 10 January 2010 (EST)
::at my age all fonts are blurry--but I did an OCR and made a new chart that works well. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:33, 11 January 2010 (EST)

==[[Satan]]==

I don't think your intro to [[Satan]] is correct, but I respect your writing ability too much to revert it. In the previous version, I had moved down your "embodiment" sentence [http://www.conservapedia.com/Satan#Secular_and_liberal_views here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:50, 13 January 2010 (EST)
::thanks. I just expanded it somewhat. I think that Conservapedia should not try to take sides in theological debates (for example, is the devil a real person or an impersonal force?) I think that just confining the Satan article to Bible verses misses 1900 years of theology and art. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:07, 13 January 2010 (EST)

==Formatting==

Thanks for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Redneck&diff=745546&oldid=745493 this]. I had a feeling that ''op cit.'' was incorrect. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:21, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::I've always hated "op cit" because it's the devil to pay to find the op cited when there are many footnotes. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:32, 16 January 2010 (EST)

:::That's a good point. Let's find a way to make it easy for the reader to locate the source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:51, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== '''Post Office''' ==

I deleted the template because it appeared to be a copyvio. Its been reformatted now into a block quote, which appears to have been the intent of the author. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 22:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::ok thanks. Note that short quotes are not copyright violations. We have fair use rights, which are pretty strong unless we somehow ruin the commercial value of a publication.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:27, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:::Short quotes aren't copyright violations, but uncited quotes are another matter [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 23:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)
::::'''what do you mean--plagiarism? Plagiarism means taking false personal credit for academic gain, which is not at issue here. Nobody is gaining any academic credit for their writing at CP.''' [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:11, 17 January 2010 (EST)
:::::Whenever you are writing, it is intellectually dishonest to quote from a source without citing the source. If you are copying something from another website, it is a simple matter to include a citation. This has the added benefit of informing the reader about the existence of the source website, which might be helpful in their research. Generally, school students are not allowed to use a wiki as a source in their work, so a wiki such as this serves mainly to provide some background and to act as a portal to other useful websites on the subject. In addition, it helps the user to see where the information came from, so they may judge the accuracy or point of view of the information accordingly. If we want to be helpful to our readers, we should provide sources wherever possible, whether we are legally required to do so or not. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:03, 17 January 2010 (EST)
::::::'''Two points: 1) it is not intellectually dishonest unless you claim personal academic credit. Look at most textbooks, for example and note that footnotes and other credits to sources are rare. 2) We do a good job in providing bibliographies and footnotes.''' [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:39, 17 January 2010 (EST)

==Thanks for quick action==
It was late and i saw some information that i thought would be helpful to a very present subject of interest, but i did not read it or the site enough to see its agenda.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:59, 18 January 2010 (EST)
::thanks for the note --it's fixed now. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:08, 18 January 2010 (EST)

== Hatemonger article. ==

Thanks. You may want to look [[Abortion genocide|here]] too--I already asked the editor in question to fix his work, but it may be beyond repair. Your call, Professor. [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 22:33, 20 January 2010 (EST)

== Image upload ==

Hi, RJJensen. I'd like to ask you how I may get images upload right. All the images I am going to upload were taken by me. Thank you.[[User:Friscokid7|Friscokid7]] 18:02, 29 January 2010 (EST)
:Only editors who have been here a while and demonstrated that they are not vandals are given image upload rights. Users without any contributions do not get image upload rights. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:14, 29 January 2010 (EST)
::The thing is that my only contributions will be adding images. For example, I have a good image of erosion that I took just last night. The image could be used in Erosion article. English is not my first language, that's why I am not sure I will be of a great help in editing the articles, but I do take good images. I am not a vandal, but the only way to prove it, is to allow me to upload some of my images. Thank you.--[[User:Friscokid7|Friscokid7]] 18:34, 29 January 2010 (EST)
:::You will not be getting upload rights. You can send the images to an admins email, which will then be posted. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:54, 29 January 2010 (EST)
::::Where could I get their email address?Thanks.--[[User:Friscokid7|Friscokid7]] 19:34, 29 January 2010 (EST)
:::::First, activate your email on C P. Then I will send you my email.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:37, 29 January 2010 (EST)
::::::I did.[[User:Friscokid7|Friscokid7]] 10:30, 30 January 2010 (EST)

== David Lloyd George article ==

I have been somewhat under the gun as of late in terms of time to do reading on history which has always been one of my favorite subjects. I recently had a chance to look at your David Lloyd George article and I thought it contained some very interesting material. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:14, 15 February 2010 (EST)
::Thanks! :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:14, 16 February 2010 (EST)

==Nice work==
I recently went back to the [[Theodore Roosevelt]] page and saw your additions to an already well written and informative page, (should be a featured article) and wanted to commended you. You could write a guide to new editors (and old) on quality writing, but knowledge of the subject is a key, and yours here is evident. Keep up the good work. To God be the glory. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:30, 17 February 2010 (EST)

: I agree! --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:32, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::thanks! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:24, 17 February 2010 (EST)

==Risk factors for cancer==

Please read my comment at [[Talk:Mobile phones and brain tumor risk]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 23 February 2010 (EST)

==Canada is north of the USA==

What made you think that Quebec was south of the US? [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Latin_America&diff=615077&oldid=611106] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:07, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

== Nice edits ==

Would be awesome if you started to contribute again. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 00:33, 21 April 2013 (EDT)

The Sixties

2013-04-21T04:31:26Z

Dvergne: /* The 'Permissive Society': license unbridled */

[[File:60s-Leaf.jpg|thumb|290px]]
'''The Sixties''' (the '''1960s''') is widely celebrated by [[leftist]]s and [[liberal]]s as a decade of progress and freedom. However, it was in reality a decade that saw the origin or the worsening of some of the gravest ills to afflict modern society. Far from being the decade of 'peace and love' it was a period of left-inspired war and terror, including the escalation of the [[Vietnam War]] and the outbreak of the [[Cultural Revolution]]; the 'events' of 1968 in universities across the western world saw a minority rabble of [[Trotskyist]] and [[Maoist]] students try to impose their views on society; and the so-called social revolution of the period saw a massive upsurge in [[sexual immorality]] and the abuse of [[illegal drugs]]. Leftist and other 'trendy' educational theories began their assault upon the education of our children. As history Professor Gerard DeGroot records, "For too long the Sixties has been a sacred zone... Cast aside the rose-tinted spectacles and we see mindless mayhem, shallow commercialism and unbridled cruelty... [While the '60s brought] flowers, music, love and good times... It also brought hatred, murder, greed, dangerous drugs, needless deaths, ethnic cleansing, neo-colonialist exploitation, sound-bite politics, sensationalism, a warped sense of equality, a bizarre notion of freedom, and the end of innocence." <ref>[http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/04/09/sixties/ "The Sixties Unplugged," by Gerard DeGroot]</ref> [[Margaret Thatcher]] noted, "We are reaping what was sown in the sixties... fashionable theories and permissive clap-trap set the scene for a society in which the old virtues of discipline and restraint were denigrated." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/marwick-sixties.html Arthur Marwick, "The Sixties" Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, 1958-1974]</ref>
==Assault upon religion==
This might be said to be two-pronged. The Sixties saw moves away from revealed to religion amongst young people in favour of a half-baked and quarter-understood mish-mash of eastern mysticism, sexual hedonism and drug abuse of the kind peddled by [[The Beatles]] in their 'Maharishi' phase; [[John Lennon]] of The Beatles went on, in his song ''Imagine'', to celebrate and propagandize a nihilistic and [[Atheism|atheistic]] view of human life. Simultaneously, many Christian priests and ministers themselves undermined Christianity by a variety of means: from watering down the required standards of Christian behaviour in a misguided attempt to seem 'trendy' and 'relevant', completely overlooking the relevance of Faith; to harnessing the Bible to [[Karl Marx]], in the form of the so-called [[Liberation Theology]] which did much to inspire left-wing [[terrorism]] in [[Latin America]].

==The 'Permissive Society': license unbridled==
[[Chastity]], restraint, and human values of decency were mocked by the 'gurus' of permissiveness. Instead, the increasing availability of artificial contraception in the form of contraceptive pills, fueled a wave of promiscuity and the promotion and practice of all forms of perversity. This was encouraged by the [[fashion]] industry: immodest apparel such as mini-skirts were flaunted by females, while androgynous clothing, eroding the masculine role, was marketed to men (The [[Rolling Stones]]' Mick Jagger notoriously took to a stage in [[London]]'s Hyde Park wearing a lace dress). Restrictions on [[pornography]] were eroded or evaded, a seminal event here being the decision of a UK court in 1963 to allow the publication of an unexpurgated version of [[D.H. Lawrence]]'s novel [[Lady Chatterley's Lover]] despite its overt and explicit sexual content. Legal reforms permitted or loosened restrictions on [[homosexuality]], [[divorce]] and [[abortion]], undermining the very fabric of family life. Feminists such as [[Germaine Greer]] launched assaults on traditional male-female relationships, while [[Lesbian|Lesbian separatists]] argued that women (which they spelled ''wimmin'' or ''womyn'') and men should lead entirely separate lives. The use of foul language and displays of nudity became a commonplace on television in many western nations, with the [[BBC]] in the van.

=='Turn on, tune in, drop out'==

This quotation, by 'counter-culture' guru [[Dr Timothy Leary]], epitomizes the attitude of many 1960s nostalgics towards [[illegal drugs]]. Drugs have been a perennial problem in societies worldwide, but in the 1960s the problem became much worse. This is because drug-taking, which was previously the covert activity of a tiny minority, perceived as immoral as well as illegal by society, suddenly became portrayed as acceptable in the media. Worse, advocates of 'permissiveness' such as Leary openly recommended the use of mind-altering drugs as a means to access a different, supposedly better, reality. Many, if not most, of these advocates had inadequate personalities which prevented them from participating fully in the richness of real life. However, their pernicious effect upon a generation of impressionable young people has been incalculable.

Drug abuse often went hand in hand with [[left wing]] politics, and the 'joint' or 'reefer' became the trademark of the 1960s student leftist plotting world revolution in his bedsit or student dorm.

==Music and Literature==
The Sixties inspired many modern greats in [[music]] and [[literature]] which endure cross generationally, despite grave misgivings about their personal morality, drug use, incipient [[Hollywood values]] and the messages conveyed:

===Music===
*[[The Beatles]]
*[[The Rolling Stones]]
*[[Led Zeppelin]]
*[[The Doors]]
*[[Jimi Hendrix]]
*[[Pink Floyd]]
*[[Jefferson Airplane]]
*[[Janis Joplin]]
*[[Sergeant Barry Sadler]]

===Writers===
*[[Tom Wolfe]]
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]
*[[Ken Kesey]]
*[[Alan Ginsburg]]
*[[Aldous Huxley]]

==Successes in the Sixties==
The Sixties however did have some good points. The [[Civil Rights Movement]] gained momentum during this period, which saw the end of segregation of the [[African Americans]]. The societal problems caused by the erosion of restraint inspired campaigners such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] to take a stand for decency and Christian standards. Also in 1969 the [[United States]] scored a remarkable triumph on behalf of the [[Free World]] in the [[Space Race]], overcoming a [[Soviet]] lead earlier in the decade, with two members of the courageous crew of [[Apollo 11]] becoming the first two humans to step on to the [[Moon]]

==Significant Events==
*[[Apollo 11]] lands on the [[Moon]]
*[[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
*[[Cultural Revolution]]
*[[Prague Spring]]
*[[Vietnam War]]

==See also==
* [[Hippie]]
*Assassination of [[John F. Kennedy]]
*Assassination of [[Martin Luther King]]
*Assassination of [[Malcolm X]]
*Attempted assassination of [[George Wallace]]
*Assassination of [[Robert F. Kennedy]]
==Further reading==
* Leaf, Jonathan. ''The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Sixties-Guides/dp/1596985720/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249607757&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search] conservative interpretation
* Olson, James S. ''Historical Dictionary of the 1960s.'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/15356518 online edition],

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:1960s]]