Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism and morality

2022-10-27T14:13:30Z

Kirikagure: /* Fundamentally Incapable */

== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate Comment ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

<blockquote> Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. </blockquote>

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::If its verified then provide a reliable reference. But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fundamentally Incapable ==

The first sentence in this article says "atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality". Now, this is plain wrong. I obviously have morals. I don't go around killing people and doing cocaine and raping people. Just because I figured out and thought for myself and discovered my morales, and did not have them hand fed me from a 2000 year old book that promotes hating people different from myself. This article is full of libel and should be heavily edited.
::Actually, the article indicates that atheism is incapable of providing a coherent system of morality which is an absolutely true statement and the sentence contains relevant footnotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:56, September 21, 2021 (EDT)
:Libel, I have to laugh out loud at that. Throwing around words like that without any comprehension of their actual meaning makes you look incredibly ignorant.
:As to whether or not atheists have morals, they can't. What's more, atheists really don't have a purpose in life; it's all about me for them with no real consequences for their actions. Morals are based on religion; God has a reason for our existance and defines consequences for our actions, but since atheists don't believe in God, atheists have no morals. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:39, 5 March 2010 (EST)

::I disagree. Morals are, of course, influenced and promoted by religion, and no one can deny that; but atheists are not immoral by NECESSITY. There are cynical and selfish atheists, but there are also atheists and agnostics who love their fellow human, and have a purpose in life, although not believing in the existance of God, or in an afterlife. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 12:23, 5 March 2010 (EST)
:::God touches atheists whether they credit him or not, and they show it whether they like it or not. The more distant one is from Jesus and our Lord, the less morals they have. Even atheists accept God to a certain extent whether they like it or not, and to accept God, one ''has'' to believe somewhere deep inside. I personally find it hard to believe that a true atheist, that believes that we all just came out of no where, actually exists. A truely "Godless" person would be completely ruthless, or at least that's my hypothesis. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:09, 5 March 2010 (EST)

:::I'm an atheist, and yet I have morals. OR DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!

Neither of you have anything backing your awfully bigoted and bold argument that because I and the original poster believe in atheism, that we have no morals. Morals do not have to be based on belief in a deity. They can be based on reasons such as mutual respect for the common man, to abide by rules and regulations to avoid trouble, and to help discover one's self.

I do not accept Jesus as my savior, and yet I have an incredible sense of morality. I, and not you or anyone else on this wiki has any authority to judge my morality based on belief in a god alone. The mere concept of judging one's morality based on belief in a deity is bigotry and stupidity at it's purest.

Your 'God' did not send you down here to talk down to people who you feel are lesser than you are. Even if there is a God, I can imagine he would be wholeheartedly disgusted with this wiki and it's managers for prejudging people based on who they are and what they politically and religiously believe.

Watch my opinion get censored for who I am and how I'm politically aligned like thousands of others have, ironic considering how the managers of this wiki appear to feel that the criticism of FNC and the Wall Street Journal editorials is based on a disregard of the 1st amendment.

Oh, and if you think that blocking this IP for half a decade is going to stop me, you're going to stop an entire airport from contributing to this wiki. With that kind of banning rationale, you guys will never leave a significant mark on the Internet.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 18:08, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:I'd just like to say that as a Christian, it offends ME that there are Christians who are so incredibly judgemental to believe that simply because someone doesn't believe in God, they are immoral. Religion gives people a set of morals to follow, but it is not the ONLY thing that can give people a set of morals to follow. And to believe that all who believe in God are moral is also ignorant - the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian fundamentalist organisation, which I highly doubt anyone on this website would consider to have been moral. And lastly, I'm very glad that not all Christians are as ignorant and judgemental as some of those on this website. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:21, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:::JamesCA, if you are a Christian, then why are you ignoring how the Bible describes atheists? Please tell us what the Bible says about atheists and what Bible says about the character of fools. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Conservative, I am a Christian, and I see no reason for you to doubt that. Romans 2:10-16 "(10) But all who do right will be rewarded with glory, honour and peace, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. (11) God doesn't have any favourites! (12) Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. (13) God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it. (14) Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they haven't got the Law. (15) This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, (16) when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says." The rest of Romans 2 is also worth reading. In summary, it says that following God's laws is more important than believing he exists, and that non-believers who follow his laws are better off than believers who don't follow his laws. Therefore, non-believers are able to follow God's laws, and hence are able to be moral. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:24, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:@TomRobinson The concept of morality by definition implies the existense of God and this has never changed because it is the simple truth, with your comment you did exactly the same mistake that everyone else like you did and this is why it has never been able to account morality on atheism, because it is logically impossible, the problem is that you are confusing ontology with epistemology, on ontological concepts it does not matter what you personally believe in and it also does not matter what particular religion you mention (you seem to hate christianity in particularwhich is the typical neckbeard atheist behavior). The issue is that without the existense of God, everything becomes relative and meaningless since there is no objective standard beyond subjective human opinions to ground anything at all, including other immaterial concepts such as truth or logic, so in return there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil since there is no standard to derive anything from. Of course there is not a single person in the world that can live for a day without a theistic framework because we all take morality for granted. [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 09:24, 27 October 2022 (EDT)

== Rename to Atheism and immorality ==

This title is more what the article is about. [[Atheism and obesity]] is not "Atheism and diet". There's no need for euphemisms here.--[[User:BriellaRollert|Briella Rollert]] 17:43, 29 May 2011 (EDT)
:I agree. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the article, surely there should be a consensus that the title should be accurate. It's almost as silly of a title as the 'Counterexamples to the Bible' the first sentence of which is "There are no Counterexamples to the Bible". - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:24, 12 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Atheism and morality is a good title. Morality measures atheism and atheism doesn't measure up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't see how the second sentence supports your point of view. The title is misleading, as the article is about the opposite of what the title says, and I think this requires a decent justification. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:41, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservapedia already has an article with the title: [[Atheist population and immorality]]. And the article has a heavy emphasis on the immorality of the atheist population.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (EDT)

User talk:RobSmith

2022-10-10T06:54:45Z

Kirikagure:

*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 1]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 2]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 3]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 4]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 5]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 6]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 7]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 8]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 9]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 10]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 11]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 12]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 13]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 14]]

==Biden - page==

Hi. Can you add this please to the [[Joe Biden]] page, I see it's locked - 'In Sep 2022, it was reported that "surging number of suspected terrorists nabbed jumping Mexico border this year." (ref ---Stephen Dinan, [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/20/surging-number-suspected-terrorists-nabbed-jumping/ Surging number of suspected terrorists nabbed jumping Mexico border this year], ''Washington Times'', September 20, 2022.'--) - thanks.[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]])[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 10:13, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:It's unlocked now. Go ahead and edit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 10:53, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
::Thanks. Regards.. Heard of Tlaib's idea, rejected by JP Morgen?[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 13:20, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:::Oh yah, I was gonna do something with that, but I figured I'd give it a couple days cause I know you could do better job. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 13:21, September 22, 2022 (EDT)

:::As to the Biden page, you can take it over and restructure it as you see fit. The way to do this is, spin out some of the existing information into the subpages (many exist already), and then keep adding content (daily if you wish) to keep it updated and interesting.
:::The page probably will need a major overhaul before 2024 primaries anyway, so no sense in waiting.
:::For example, all the stuff on the 2020 election, which 90% plus is redundant to information in CP elsewhere, can be removed to make space (the page, as is, is at the limits in term of size). Just leave a subheading with brief blurb about election fraud and link to the subpage.
:::It's a high traffic page nearing 1 million hits, and we link to it all the time from Main Page Right.
:::Once you get an idea what you'd like the page to look like, we can rewrite and update the whole Intro to keep it current.
:::Let me know if you want to become the new page manager. I can give you more pointers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 13:30, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
::::I think, you are far more talented than I. BTW, regarding your sig. Hilarious. Hope there is a bumper sticker [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B5zF3iRN62M/maxresdefault.jpg?v=62cf7944]..."Ich Bin Ein Breakfast Taco-er" ... IMHO, the GOP better invest more in Latino votes.[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 19:32, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Well, if Biden's gonna run (which I'd be surprised) we should give that page a complete overhaul. And to do it right, a year in advance wouldn't hurt.
:::::The Biden page is what you call a "Portal page". Viewers come to it, but some of the real guts are on subpages. The trick is keeping the Intro updated. Then when it's linked to from the Main Page Headlines, people can see its current and being regularly maintained. So if you think there's some stale content getting in the way to your improvements, particularly in the Intro, let me know and we'll work something out.
:::::As to my sig, it was funny researching it; Wikipedia has a whole article denying that it ever happened, complete with pictures of what a jelly-filled donut looks like. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 22:32, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
== quick request ==

Please check your email. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:49, September 22, 2022 (EDT

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]], Will you stop it, please?! You can't block a page after the first edit from the end of the last block happened 18 days ago, for unknown reasons! Stop reverting my edits to the [[Democratic Party]] article, that are far from the lie (and I even tried to compromise) and then blocking the article just a moment later for days! What's the problem?! Do I have to consider this abuse of power if not even [[liberal censorship]]?! [[User:Republiproud|Republiproud]] ([[User talk:Republiproud|talk]]) 13:27, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
:[[Talk:Democratic_Party#Political_Ideology]] is the appropriate place to handle your concerns. Create an extended sub-subhead to continue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 14:09, September 24, 2022 (EDT
== Invitation to a debate page on the conflict in Ukraine ==

Instead of using the main page talk page for debating the conflict in Ukraine between Russia and the Kieve regime, I thought it would be better to have a centralized debate page.

You are invited to the debate page at: [[Debate: Will Russia or the Kiev regime prevail in the conflict in Ukraine?]]

I also sent an invitation to [[User:ConwayIII]] since you two are the ones who will debate most on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:41, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

Enjoy the debate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:42, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

:I dunno; debating you or Conway is kinda like debating Joe Biden on the subject of nuclear war, and none of you are in control of your faculties. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:21, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:I think you totally, totally misunderstand the situation. I am not a "fan" or "cheerleader". I am not a prognosticator, either. I am a chronicler of factual history. You don't seem to understand the basis of the conflict, or its course of events. But you do seem to have a penchant for swallowing globalist propaganda wholesale. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:27, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:War is not a debate; and you seem oblivious how this war has affected your own life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:29, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::I deleted the debate. When you ignore/deny Putin's corruption/authoritarianism and Russian atrocities and other matters, you become a cheerleader. The Russian/Ukrainian societies are nothing to write home about and both of them are headed for decline. Most of Russia's cultural achievements are in the past. In terms of finances, I am in pretty recession-proof industries and I deliver high ROI to the people I do work for so I don't expect this war to affect me much in the short term. The war will affect Europe the most and Europe/USA influence each other. Like Brexit helped give Trump some additional wind in his back in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:53, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::Fine. None of that has anything to do with the conflict. If Putin dropped dead tomorrow the conflict will continue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:25, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::You seem to think Putin is responsible for everything, and if Putin were removed, there would be peace. You have been brainwashed by Western propaganda (again, go back and read the Snowden files.) [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:35, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt for an instant that you believed Trump colluded with Russia for two solid years, given the quality of information sources you rely on. And you do not see the link between Snowden's release of documentation on information war, the Trump-Russia collision hoax, and what has happened in Ukraine since 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:40, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::::I agree. Russian society/culture is not going to radically change after Putin loses power. And I never believed in the Russian-collusion hoax. And I do know that the CIA/NGOs can instigate and/or help cause revolutions such as the Orange Revolution. At the same time, historical research indicates that unmet societal expectations/instability (social/economic instablity) are the fuel of revolutions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:23, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::The CIA is fomenting the unrest in Teheran right now, in Yerevan, in Thailand, in Belarus, and even in open, free, democratic Russia itself among other places. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:43, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Since the end of the Cold War, communism moved Westward. It always had a base in the West. The social unrest in the United States in the 1960s was Kremlin directed. Russia today has no organized global reach with Communist parties all over the world that it had prior to 1991. The West through its various NGOs and other vehicles, including a vast media/propaganda apparatus, does have such a reach. And it is dominated by the same nihilistic Leftist ideology that dominated the Soviet Union and Comintern, using much the same revolutionary organizational techniques. The CIA owes much to the KGB, which essentially was its schoolmaster. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:52, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Like the USSR did during its whole existence, the CIA looks for hot spots of social unrest (what you describe above as "unmet societal expectations/instability") to exploit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:57, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::::::<aside>by "nihilistic Leftist ideology" I am not talking about anti-capitalist ideology. I am referring to undemocratic totalitarian rule by a governing elite. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:05, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

::::::Knocking down the border checkpoints between Russia and Donbas is fraught with problems and risks; it is easier for a Ukrainian terrorist now to infiltrate into Russia. And NATO has made it clear, with its US funding, that terrorism, sabotage, and assassination are on the table as a "legitimate" weapon of war. Just wait for the reprisals in what appears to be a decades long Cold War unfolding. As I said earlier, the CIA is a student of the KGB. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:21, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

::::::The First Chechen war 1993-95, not two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was a US-financed proxy war. So the bad faith exhibited by the United States, NATO, and the West has been apparent since day one of the end of the Cold War. Every Russian schoolchild knows this. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:37, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
== Phil Gramm video ==

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-6hMHAGr74 Senator Phil Gramm: Why American inequality is a myth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:31, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

==Spam emails about reset password==
[[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] ([[User talk:Kirikagure|talk]]) 13:20, October 10, 2022 (EDT) Hello i keep getting spam emails from conservapedia that someone requested a "password change" from my account even though i did not, and the emails send me a temporary passwort,i got 6 of them already and not sure what to do

User talk:RobSmith

2022-10-10T06:53:17Z

Kirikagure:

*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 1]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 2]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 3]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 4]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 5]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 6]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 7]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 8]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 9]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 10]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 11]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 12]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 13]]
*[[User talk:RobSmith/Archive 14]]

==Biden - page==

Hi. Can you add this please to the [[Joe Biden]] page, I see it's locked - 'In Sep 2022, it was reported that "surging number of suspected terrorists nabbed jumping Mexico border this year." (ref ---Stephen Dinan, [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/20/surging-number-suspected-terrorists-nabbed-jumping/ Surging number of suspected terrorists nabbed jumping Mexico border this year], ''Washington Times'', September 20, 2022.'--) - thanks.[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]])[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 10:13, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:It's unlocked now. Go ahead and edit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 10:53, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
::Thanks. Regards.. Heard of Tlaib's idea, rejected by JP Morgen?[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 13:20, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:::Oh yah, I was gonna do something with that, but I figured I'd give it a couple days cause I know you could do better job. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 13:21, September 22, 2022 (EDT)

:::As to the Biden page, you can take it over and restructure it as you see fit. The way to do this is, spin out some of the existing information into the subpages (many exist already), and then keep adding content (daily if you wish) to keep it updated and interesting.
:::The page probably will need a major overhaul before 2024 primaries anyway, so no sense in waiting.
:::For example, all the stuff on the 2020 election, which 90% plus is redundant to information in CP elsewhere, can be removed to make space (the page, as is, is at the limits in term of size). Just leave a subheading with brief blurb about election fraud and link to the subpage.
:::It's a high traffic page nearing 1 million hits, and we link to it all the time from Main Page Right.
:::Once you get an idea what you'd like the page to look like, we can rewrite and update the whole Intro to keep it current.
:::Let me know if you want to become the new page manager. I can give you more pointers. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 13:30, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
::::I think, you are far more talented than I. BTW, regarding your sig. Hilarious. Hope there is a bumper sticker [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B5zF3iRN62M/maxresdefault.jpg?v=62cf7944]..."Ich Bin Ein Breakfast Taco-er" ... IMHO, the GOP better invest more in Latino votes.[[User:Telling|Telling]] ([[User talk:Telling|talk]]) 19:32, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Well, if Biden's gonna run (which I'd be surprised) we should give that page a complete overhaul. And to do it right, a year in advance wouldn't hurt.
:::::The Biden page is what you call a "Portal page". Viewers come to it, but some of the real guts are on subpages. The trick is keeping the Intro updated. Then when it's linked to from the Main Page Headlines, people can see its current and being regularly maintained. So if you think there's some stale content getting in the way to your improvements, particularly in the Intro, let me know and we'll work something out.
:::::As to my sig, it was funny researching it; Wikipedia has a whole article denying that it ever happened, complete with pictures of what a jelly-filled donut looks like. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 22:32, September 22, 2022 (EDT)
== quick request ==

Please check your email. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:49, September 22, 2022 (EDT

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]], Will you stop it, please?! You can't block a page after the first edit from the end of the last block happened 18 days ago, for unknown reasons! Stop reverting my edits to the [[Democratic Party]] article, that are far from the lie (and I even tried to compromise) and then blocking the article just a moment later for days! What's the problem?! Do I have to consider this abuse of power if not even [[liberal censorship]]?! [[User:Republiproud|Republiproud]] ([[User talk:Republiproud|talk]]) 13:27, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
:[[Talk:Democratic_Party#Political_Ideology]] is the appropriate place to handle your concerns. Create an extended sub-subhead to continue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 14:09, September 24, 2022 (EDT
== Invitation to a debate page on the conflict in Ukraine ==

Instead of using the main page talk page for debating the conflict in Ukraine between Russia and the Kieve regime, I thought it would be better to have a centralized debate page.

You are invited to the debate page at: [[Debate: Will Russia or the Kiev regime prevail in the conflict in Ukraine?]]

I also sent an invitation to [[User:ConwayIII]] since you two are the ones who will debate most on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:41, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

Enjoy the debate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:42, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

:I dunno; debating you or Conway is kinda like debating Joe Biden on the subject of nuclear war, and none of you are in control of your faculties. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:21, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:I think you totally, totally misunderstand the situation. I am not a "fan" or "cheerleader". I am not a prognosticator, either. I am a chronicler of factual history. You don't seem to understand the basis of the conflict, or its course of events. But you do seem to have a penchant for swallowing globalist propaganda wholesale. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:27, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:War is not a debate; and you seem oblivious how this war has affected your own life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 17:29, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::I deleted the debate. When you ignore/deny Putin's corruption/authoritarianism and Russian atrocities and other matters, you become a cheerleader. The Russian/Ukrainian societies are nothing to write home about and both of them are headed for decline. Most of Russia's cultural achievements are in the past. In terms of finances, I am in pretty recession-proof industries and I deliver high ROI to the people I do work for so I don't expect this war to affect me much in the short term. The war will affect Europe the most and Europe/USA influence each other. Like Brexit helped give Trump some additional wind in his back in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:53, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::Fine. None of that has anything to do with the conflict. If Putin dropped dead tomorrow the conflict will continue. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:25, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::You seem to think Putin is responsible for everything, and if Putin were removed, there would be peace. You have been brainwashed by Western propaganda (again, go back and read the Snowden files.) [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:35, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt for an instant that you believed Trump colluded with Russia for two solid years, given the quality of information sources you rely on. And you do not see the link between Snowden's release of documentation on information war, the Trump-Russia collision hoax, and what has happened in Ukraine since 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 18:40, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::::I agree. Russian society/culture is not going to radically change after Putin loses power. And I never believed in the Russian-collusion hoax. And I do know that the CIA/NGOs can instigate and/or help cause revolutions such as the Orange Revolution. At the same time, historical research indicates that unmet societal expectations/instability (social/economic instablity) are the fuel of revolutions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:23, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::The CIA is fomenting the unrest in Teheran right now, in Yerevan, in Thailand, in Belarus, and even in open, free, democratic Russia itself among other places. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:43, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Since the end of the Cold War, communism moved Westward. It always had a base in the West. The social unrest in the United States in the 1960s was Kremlin directed. Russia today has no organized global reach with Communist parties all over the world that it had prior to 1991. The West through its various NGOs and other vehicles, including a vast media/propaganda apparatus, does have such a reach. And it is dominated by the same nihilistic Leftist ideology that dominated the Soviet Union and Comintern, using much the same revolutionary organizational techniques. The CIA owes much to the KGB, which essentially was its schoolmaster. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:52, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
:::::Like the USSR did during its whole existence, the CIA looks for hot spots of social unrest (what you describe above as "unmet societal expectations/instability") to exploit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 19:57, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
::::::<aside>by "nihilistic Leftist ideology" I am not talking about anti-capitalist ideology. I am referring to undemocratic totalitarian rule by a governing elite. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:05, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

::::::Knocking down the border checkpoints between Russia and Donbas is fraught with problems and risks; it is easier for a Ukrainian terrorist now to infiltrate into Russia. And NATO has made it clear, with its US funding, that terrorism, sabotage, and assassination are on the table as a "legitimate" weapon of war. Just wait for the reprisals in what appears to be a decades long Cold War unfolding. As I said earlier, the CIA is a student of the KGB. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:21, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

::::::The First Chechen war 1993-95, not two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was a US-financed proxy war. So the bad faith exhibited by the United States, NATO, and the West has been apparent since day one of the end of the Cold War. Every Russian schoolchild knows this. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Ich bin ein breakfast taco]] 20:37, October 7, 2022 (EDT)
== Phil Gramm video ==

*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-6hMHAGr74 Senator Phil Gramm: Why American inequality is a myth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:31, October 7, 2022 (EDT)

[[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] ([[User talk:Kirikagure|talk]]) 13:20, October 10, 2022 (EDT) Hello i keep getting spam emails from conservapedia that someone requested a "password change" from my account even though i did not, and the emails send me a temporary passport,i got 6 of them already and not sure what to do

User:Kirikagure

2022-10-10T06:23:59Z

Kirikagure:

The Christian worldview is the only worldview that has completely answered all of the fundamental questions of mankind which are origins (who i am, where did i come from), meaning (what is my purpose, why is this all happening), morality (where do objective moral standards come from, what is right and wrong) and destiny (what happens after passing away, the afterlife) while the ultimate truth is revealed at the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”, so as long as your desires are pure and you have found salvation through Jesus, your personal world should manifest in your own paradise room in Heaven.

User:Kirikagure

2022-10-10T06:23:36Z

Kirikagure:

The Christian worldview is the only worldview that has completely answered all of the fundamental questions of mankind which are origins (who i am, where did i come from), meaning (what is my purpose, why is this all happening), morality (where do objective moral standards come from, what is right and wrong) and destiny (what happens after passing away, the afterlife) while the ultimate turth is revealed at the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”, so as long as your desires are pure and you have found salvation through Jesus, your personal anime world should manifest in your own paradise room in Heaven.

Talk:Genesis

2021-09-24T16:21:45Z

Kirikagure:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to ''yom''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::The text of Genesis 1 doesn't allow for the days to be any other length of time. For one' it numbers the days off. "The first day" in Genesis refers to a literal day just like "In the Fourth year of Solomon's reign" or "In the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus" refer to literal years. [[User:Fire$hark|Fire$hark]] ([[User talk:Fire$hark|talk]]) 19:11, 26 January 2020 (EST)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
::Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
::I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use ''another'' language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.' Ah, now there's a point (albeit a very old one based, as usual, on backward reasoning that attempts to derive fact from belief) - and what might ''that'' suggest, I wonder? Follow the logic! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That was not meant as a line of reasoning, but as an explanation of the consequences. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Claiming that Cush (a character in biblical history) descended from Africans because we all descended from Africans (an aspect of the atheist origins myth) is a silly amalgam of two opposing ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the [http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-p2.htm web]). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a 'critical scholar', following a complaint retailed by Conservative that the critics aren't multidisciplinary enough. You can't have it both ways! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you are quoting a 'critical scholar' in support of an argument, you are using him as some sort of 'authority'. I didn't notice Conservative's complaint, and wouldn't agree with it, as you've stated it there at least. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::''But Jesus beheld them and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God, all things are possible.'' Matthew 19:26. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd appreciate it if you'd actually try and answer or refute my questions/arguments instead of just dismissing them as though they are self-evidently incorrect. Of course I've heard of photosynthesis, but plants can survive 24 hours without the sun, can't they? Just like ''day'', ''yom'' can mean a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time ''depending on the context''. The context of Genesis 1 (numbered days, days have evenings and mornings), indicates normal days, not indefinite periods of time. Without looking it up, from memory the Genesis 2 reference to plants is specifically to planting the ones that were in the garden, not a general reference to the creation of plants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Genesis doesn't say that he did it again in 1:14. Compromising what the Bible actually means with secular viewpoints plays into their hands. Standing firm on God's word doesn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Revised Standard Version: Gen.1:4-5"...and God '''separated the light from the darkness'''. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night..." Gen. 1:14 "And God said,"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to '''separate the day from the night'''..."

::::Hmmm, I guess I read it too quickly and was looking specifically for references to light and dark, not day and night.
::::So to answer your question, God separated light from dark on day 1, when he created light. But this was a temporary light, as the sun wasn't created until day 4. On day 4, he created the sun to take over the role of separating day from night.
::::''Why'' He did it that way is probably a theological question, and one I've heard numerous times was so that we would understand (from the Sun not being created until day 4) that the Sun is not the source of all life and therefore not to be worshipped.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The only way to answer what the Jewish writer of Genesis meant would be to consult a Jewish commentary. Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105) wrote the first comprehensive commentary of the Talmud. He both interpreted day as being a longer period of time and said that the Sun was created on the first day and placed in the sky on the fourth day. I see no better answer then that.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::It's not the "only" way, and Rashi's opinions are refuted [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2640/31/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Virtually everyone agrees that light predated the sun regardless of time, so it is strange to even pose the question of how did light exist before the sun as it is already well known, and especially since the 7 day week of creation is the only model that fits perfecty both in the historical course of events and in the model of the week that we have universally. The sun and moon are the localized light sources that were created on day 4 and they are not referring to the general light of the universe, in physics, not only space itself can emit light on its own and does not need matter as a source such as the radiation from empty space which emits light but also there was matter emitting light before the sun such as ionized plasma which forms neutral atoms that allow the universe to deliver the light. Last but not least, you do not need the sun to have light such as when you are in your room at night and open the lightbulb and also you do not need the sun or the moon to have a 24 hour day. Genesis explains that there was a general seperation of light and darkness refering to the general concepts of light and darkness and on day 4 it refers to the creation of the sun and moon system which is the only way that we can function in the mortal material world. It explains everything perfectly. [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 12:00, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

== Problem with this sentence ==

There are a couple of mistakes in this sentence in "authorship":
''such a man did have the eductation necessary to accomplish this during that time in history''. obviously ''eductation'' is a spelling mistake and should be corrected. There is also a more subtle error - the sentence implies that Moses actually existed. OK he might well have done, but is it proven? PS - I'm not trying to pick an argument here, honest. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the spelling error; thanks for pointing it out.
:How do you prove whether a historical figure existed? That is, is it proven that Josephus existed, or Solomon, or Julius Caesar, or Captain Cook? What sort of "proof" would you like? I would say that there is as much evidence for Moses as some of those others.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That's a fair point, for instance [[Socrates]] has no ''proof'' of existence. I suppose it depends on personal belief in the end. My personal feeling is that, the further back in time you go, the less likely someone's existence woulkd be. David and solomon I can believe in easily, Moses maybe, but before that...? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 06:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think that Moses' authenticity is pretty-well accepted, as is Abraham's, and he preceded Moses by quite a bit. It depends on personal belief to the extent of whether we are going to accept the available evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Problems with consistency==

Why does the book of Genesis offer differing accounts of sequence of things created, one right after another? If this account is taken as "fact," as "literal history," as many christians seem to wish us to take it, what are we to make of this clear contradiction?

"GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

So, what was created first? Man or beast? When a "literal history" has this sort of consistency problems in the first section, doubts will no doubt erupt, as they no doubt should.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 23:52, 18 February, 2008(EST)
: See [[Creation story]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==Drama Festival==
This article could point out that it is possible to reconcile the Genesis account of Creation, saying the Universe was created in seven days (or six days if you do not count the day God rested), with modern science, saying the Universe was created billions of years ago. The opening of Genesis is a description of a drama festival that took place over seven days, that used to be acted in ancient Israel to give thanks for the Creation. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 02:03, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis

2021-09-24T16:20:26Z

Kirikagure: /* The Fourth Day */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. But "day" has a range of meanings, including a long period of time, or an era ("In my father's day..."). The same applies to ''yom''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::The text of Genesis 1 doesn't allow for the days to be any other length of time. For one' it numbers the days off. "The first day" in Genesis refers to a literal day just like "In the Fourth year of Solomon's reign" or "In the twelfth year of king Ahasuerus" refer to literal years. [[User:Fire$hark|Fire$hark]] ([[User talk:Fire$hark|talk]]) 19:11, 26 January 2020 (EST)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you try to exclude some scholars on the basis of religious affiliation? That is unfair discrimination and biased.
::Accepting a late date of compilation would require accepting that the record is not eyewitness testimony for a large part of it, and would make other parts of the Bible incorrect. For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.
::I strongly suspect that your claims about the origin of Hebrew are wrong. Even if you are correct with that, it doesn't follow that the Israelites didn't use ''another'' language (and translate later). Remember Moses was raised in Pharaoh's house in Egypt, and Egypt had writing, so Moses would have been able to write. Do you think that no other Israelite of his time could write? That's would be nonsense. Ergo, the Israelites had a written language (whether or not it was Hebrew) from the time of Moses at the latest.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::'For example, Jesus referred to the writings of Moses. So if Moses didn't write them, Jesus was wrong.' Ah, now there's a point (albeit a very old one based, as usual, on backward reasoning that attempts to derive fact from belief) - and what might ''that'' suggest, I wonder? Follow the logic! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That was not meant as a line of reasoning, but as an explanation of the consequences. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Claiming that Cush (a character in biblical history) descended from Africans because we all descended from Africans (an aspect of the atheist origins myth) is a silly amalgam of two opposing ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You just answered it. "not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit." Who's doing the changing, I wonder? And just who are these "real" Bible scholars who know these several authors they claim wrote it? Just what were these scholars' motives? And who exactly were these authors? Don't you even see what is going on? A bunch of scholars have made a claim that certain people wrote the Bible according to the "documentary hypothesis", and they cannot even name them, let alone prove their theory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: One need not give them names like "Charles" or "Franklin" - they didn't sign their works as such. As to the scholars: R.E. Friedman, "Who Wrote the Bible?", P.C. Craigie, "The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth & Content" and Rev. Ken Collins, "The Torah in modern scholarship" (the last can be found on the [http://www.kencollins.com/Bible-p2.htm web]). --21:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Is research by critics acceptable? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Which research? I put it in my previous message: research that is the most relevant and accurate. Yes, that can be from both sides, but it should be from experts, not amateur bibliosceptics (for example). Other than being an evangelical atheist with qualifications in scientific fields, I don't know what justification there is for including Richard Dawkins as an authority in the [[Conservapedia talk:Alleged Bible contradictions]] page, for example. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::He isn't quoted as an 'authority', merely as a 'critical scholar', following a complaint retailed by Conservative that the critics aren't multidisciplinary enough. You can't have it both ways! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you are quoting a 'critical scholar' in support of an argument, you are using him as some sort of 'authority'. I didn't notice Conservative's complaint, and wouldn't agree with it, as you've stated it there at least. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:40, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::''But Jesus beheld them and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God, all things are possible.'' Matthew 19:26. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd appreciate it if you'd actually try and answer or refute my questions/arguments instead of just dismissing them as though they are self-evidently incorrect. Of course I've heard of photosynthesis, but plants can survive 24 hours without the sun, can't they? Just like ''day'', ''yom'' can mean a 24-hour day or an indefinite period of time ''depending on the context''. The context of Genesis 1 (numbered days, days have evenings and mornings), indicates normal days, not indefinite periods of time. Without looking it up, from memory the Genesis 2 reference to plants is specifically to planting the ones that were in the garden, not a general reference to the creation of plants. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Phil, Being too literal just plays into the hands of the secularist. If God separated the light from the darkness and created day and night 1:4-5. Why did he do it again 1:14? --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 23:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Genesis doesn't say that he did it again in 1:14. Compromising what the Bible actually means with secular viewpoints plays into their hands. Standing firm on God's word doesn't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Revised Standard Version: Gen.1:4-5"...and God '''separated the light from the darkness'''. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night..." Gen. 1:14 "And God said,"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to '''separate the day from the night'''..."

::::Hmmm, I guess I read it too quickly and was looking specifically for references to light and dark, not day and night.
::::So to answer your question, God separated light from dark on day 1, when he created light. But this was a temporary light, as the sun wasn't created until day 4. On day 4, he created the sun to take over the role of separating day from night.
::::''Why'' He did it that way is probably a theological question, and one I've heard numerous times was so that we would understand (from the Sun not being created until day 4) that the Sun is not the source of all life and therefore not to be worshipped.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The only way to answer what the Jewish writer of Genesis meant would be to consult a Jewish commentary. Rabbi Rashi (1040-1105) wrote the first comprehensive commentary of the Talmud. He both interpreted day as being a longer period of time and said that the Sun was created on the first day and placed in the sky on the fourth day. I see no better answer then that.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::It's not the "only" way, and Rashi's opinions are refuted [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2640/31/ here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Virtually everyone agrees that light predated the sun regardless of time, so it is strange to even pose the question of how did light exist before the sun as it is already well known, and especially since the 7 day week of creation is the only model that fits perfecty both in the historical course of events and in the model of the week that we have universally. The sun and moon are the localized light sources that were created on day 4 and they are not referring to the general light of the universe, in physics, not only space itself can emit light on its own and does not need matter as a source such as the radiation from empty space which emits light but also there was matter emitting light before the sun such as ionized plasma which forms neutral atoms that allow the universe to deliver the light. Last but not least, you do not need the sun to have light such as when you are in your room at night and open lightbulb and also you do not need the sun or the moon to have a 24 hour day. Genesis explains that there was a general seperation of light and darkness refering to the general concepts of light and darkness and on day 4 it refers to the creation of the sun and moon system which is the only way that we can function in the mortal material world. It explains everything perfectly. [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 12:00, 24 September 2021 (EDT)

== Problem with this sentence ==

There are a couple of mistakes in this sentence in "authorship":
''such a man did have the eductation necessary to accomplish this during that time in history''. obviously ''eductation'' is a spelling mistake and should be corrected. There is also a more subtle error - the sentence implies that Moses actually existed. OK he might well have done, but is it proven? PS - I'm not trying to pick an argument here, honest. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 13:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've fixed the spelling error; thanks for pointing it out.
:How do you prove whether a historical figure existed? That is, is it proven that Josephus existed, or Solomon, or Julius Caesar, or Captain Cook? What sort of "proof" would you like? I would say that there is as much evidence for Moses as some of those others.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That's a fair point, for instance [[Socrates]] has no ''proof'' of existence. I suppose it depends on personal belief in the end. My personal feeling is that, the further back in time you go, the less likely someone's existence woulkd be. David and solomon I can believe in easily, Moses maybe, but before that...? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 06:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think that Moses' authenticity is pretty-well accepted, as is Abraham's, and he preceded Moses by quite a bit. It depends on personal belief to the extent of whether we are going to accept the available evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Problems with consistency==

Why does the book of Genesis offer differing accounts of sequence of things created, one right after another? If this account is taken as "fact," as "literal history," as many christians seem to wish us to take it, what are we to make of this clear contradiction?

"GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

So, what was created first? Man or beast? When a "literal history" has this sort of consistency problems in the first section, doubts will no doubt erupt, as they no doubt should.
[[User:Artiefisk|Artiefisk]] 23:52, 18 February, 2008(EST)
: See [[Creation story]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==Drama Festival==
This article could point out that it is possible to reconcile the Genesis account of Creation, saying the Universe was created in seven days (or six days if you do not count the day God rested), with modern science, saying the Universe was created billions of years ago. The opening of Genesis is a description of a drama festival that took place over seven days, that used to be acted in ancient Israel to give thanks for the Creation. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 02:03, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Freedom From Atheism Foundation

2021-03-07T18:26:17Z

Kirikagure:

It was correct the first time, prepositions should not be capitalized.--[[User:StanM|StanM]] ([[User talk:StanM|talk]]) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (EST)

==Regarding the Twitter Page==
What happened to the twitter page of Freedom from Atheism Foundation? They should be informed that they should update the main website to become the hub http://ffaf.weebly.com/ by including all of their news feed and articles just in case something happens to the facebook page as well, so that people can view everything from the main website which cannot be taken down since it is owned by them [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 8:23 7 March 2021

Talk:Merlin

2021-01-20T17:18:33Z

Kirikagure: Created page with "Hello, it should be noted that the historians who wrote about Merlin and King Arthur considered them as historical people and they were both Christians, one being a warrior an..."

Hello, it should be noted that the historians who wrote about Merlin and King Arthur considered them as historical people and they were both Christians, one being a warrior and the other a seer. The problem is that the staff of wikipedia who write their extremely biased articles are almost entirely from the atheist left who have invented their own darwinian narrative and try to re-write history by making every person assosiated with Christianity a mythical figure such as Abraham, Moses and so on, as well as other historical people who had interactions with dinosaurs such as Beowulf that prove Creationism. It is also worth noting that it takes only a few decades for entire Kingdoms to disappear from the map such as Camelot, most of ancient history is virtually invisible and the historical documents are more trustworthy than the opinions of liberal "scholars", this fallen world has been changing fast when it comes to the environment, even after the Worldwide Flood. [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 12:15 20 January 2021

User talk:DavidB4

2021-01-01T16:11:11Z

Kirikagure:

<big>'''<big><center>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidB4&action=edit&section=new Post a new message]</center></big>'''</big>
Archives: [[User talk:DavidB4/Archive 1|1]], [[User talk:DavidB4/Archive 2|2]], [[User talk:DavidB4/Archive 3|3]]
 Last change made by {{REVISIONUSER}} on {{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}} 
'''Feel free to post any questions or comments here. If you don't hear back from me, you can also try e-mailing me.''' 
''For image upload requests, see [[CP:IUR]]. For move requests, use the [[:Template:Move|page move template]]. For normal deletion requests, use the [[:Template:Delete Notice|Delete Notice template]], and for speedy deletion requests, use [[:Template:Db|Db]] or [[:Template:Speedy|speedy]].''
 
__TOC__

== Move request ==

Hallo. I need your help to move two pages as I made errors in their titles.

One of them is "Sarah Brown Liberal Democrat".
It has been suggested I change this to "Sarah Brown (UK Politician)" as most readers are American. I just need to figure out how to do this.

The second is "Jane Samantha Fae alias John Ozimek" which should read Jane Francesca Fae. I would be very grateful if you could please shift those for me. [[User:GraceDalrymple|GraceDalrymple]]

:Yes, I saw the discussion. I have moved those two pages, as requested. Moving pages is restricted to administrators and SysOps, so it is not your fault, as if you just can't figure out how to move pages...the wiki will not let you. No need to feel bad about it!
:I am happy to help, so just let me know if/when you need further assistance. It's no trouble! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:41, 27 September 2018 (EDT)

Would you please move [[Qanon]] to [[QAnon]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:37, 3 November 2018 (EDT)
:In addition to the above, would you please move [[:Category:Christian social reformers]] for capitalization. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:58, 4 November 2018 (EST)
::Both done --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:00, 6 November 2018 (EST)

Another move request: would you please fix the spelling error in this image title (the word "official" specifically)? [[:File:Enrique Peña Nieto oficial pic.jpg]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 1 December 2018 (EST)

:I think that actually may be deliberate (see: https://www.facebook.com/Enrique-Peña-Nieto-Oficial-1708563375863631). I don't mind moving it if you still think that is needed, but it is protected so someone will need to unlock it first. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:28, 1 December 2018 (EST)

::Good point -- it's probably Spanish. However, we are an English-language encyclopedia, so it might still be good to change it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:38, 3 December 2018 (EST)

:::My Spanish is very rusty, but that was my assumption. I'm fine with moving it though. Want me to ask Andy to unlock it? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:30, 3 December 2018 (EST)

::::I would appreciate that. Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:10, 3 December 2018 (EST)

:::::Done! [[:File:Enrique Peña Nieto oficial pic.jpg]] --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 4 December 2018 (EST)

::::::Would you please move this page to capitalize the "M": [[Javier milei]]? Also, please watch your email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:03, 6 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::Moved. I just thinking about email... --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (EST)

::::::::Would you please move [[Ilana mercer]] to [[Ilana Mercer]] and delete the new redirect? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:48, 11 December 2018 (EST)

Done. I have been sometimes leaving the redirects (for a while) so that new editors who don't know how to use RC can still find their pages. However, that may be unnecessary, and since I see you usually delete the redirect anyway, I will plan on just deleting the redirect in the future. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (EST)
:Thanks! Regarding redirects, I guess it depends on the specific article. I'm fine deciding case-by-case, since redirects might be more necessary for some articles over others. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 11 December 2018 (EST)
::Hello DavidB4, would you please move [[Eastern Empires vs Western Empires]] to be an essay? I would rather delete it, but it just seems like a low-quality opinion article that could just be reformatted as such. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:13, 20 December 2018 (EST)

:::Done. I was tempted to delete it also, especially considering that it seems to have been made by a disposable account. However, I was waiting to see what others thought. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (EST)

While I'm reluctant to rename my "Donald Trump achievements" articles so long after creation, it probably would be a good idea to move [[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration, illegal immigration, and border security]] to [[Donald Trump achievements: Immigration and border security]]. If you agree this is a good idea, would you please do it, and would you then delete the redirect and change every link where I (or someone else) has linked it? Then, I will begin doing the 2-3 article splits I told you about. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:35, 31 December 2018 (EST)

:I agree--that is a repetitive name, so a move makes sense. I have moved the page, and clean up most of the links to the old name. However, I have a little bit of a time crunch right now, so I'm going to need to leave one thing undone: [[Donald Trump]] needs to be unlocked so the link can be updated. I can ask for the unlock later, or you can if you get there first. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:02, 31 December 2018 (EST)

Would you please move the article [[Conservative Revolution]] to the "essay" namespace? I don't want to delete it outright, but the article isn't suitable as an encyclopedia article, considering the use of second person, lack of intro paragraph, and the fact it seems to be making an argument like an essay. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:44, 1 July 2019 (EDT)
:Also, please move the article [[Edward feser]] to capitalize the guy's last name. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:16, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
::Also, do you see any problem with these articles: [[Generation Identity]], [[European New Right]]? Either way, they need formatting work. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:56, 5 July 2019 (EDT)

:::I see no glaring issues, on the surface, although the formatting of [[Generation Identity]] suggests that it came from a Wiki. I didn't find any problems with a standard plagiarism check. It needs some cleanup though. [[European New Right]] looks incomplete and need expansion. No glaring issues though.
:::I've moved these pages. Sorry for the wait. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:21, 5 July 2019 (EDT)
::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:49, 6 July 2019 (EDT)
:::::Would you please move [[Wwe roster]] to capitalize "WWE"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:12, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

::::::Good idea. I've moved it, but left the redirect for now, so the author doesn't "loose" the page. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (EDT)

==Hi==
hi and thank you for move sugguestion to sting. [[User:Massaq25|Massaq25]] ([[User talk:Massaq25|talk]]) 18:23, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
:Hello, and you're welcome! Do you agree? I'm open to other suggestions, I just don't think that "sting" is a sufficiently descriptive title. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
::DavidB4, I would appreciate it if you would move the page now. No need for a move tag (nobody's going to comment there anyway). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 29 September 2018 (EDT)
:::Moved to [[Steve Borden]] with a redirect from "Sting (wrestler)" --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:09, 30 September 2018 (EDT)

== Quotes ==
Those quotes weren't my own, you should know that, they're from actual people. Also, if it's debatable, then please by all means...refute me. --[[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 02:48, 1 December 2018 (EST)
:I'm obviously not DavidB4, but I will still point out that a simple Google search shows it's very debatable: [https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2014/07/07/is-abstinence-unhealthy 1],[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36084314/ns/health-sexual_health/t/no-sex-may-be-no-fun-it-unhealthy/#.XAKfVmhKhPY 2],[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/09/sex-celibacy-friendships-women 3],[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1077378/I-gave-sex-years-ago--best-thing-I-did.html 4] -- the info you added was undue weight, considering the overall size of the article, and it falsely implied that abstinence is a bad thing for your health. It appears that it is only when you really want to have sex and you don't. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:58, 1 December 2018 (EST)
::Yes, it was a very one-sided argument, which is factually questionable. Without getting unnecessarily descriptive, the body does have ways of dealing with some of the stated issues. Research is sketchy if even existent on several of the things you mentioned. Additionally, the first paragraph was written as your own, mot a quote, even though is was a direct copy-and-paste from another source. (That is by definition plagiarism--taking credit for someone else's work.) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:03, 1 December 2018 (EST)
::: ''So what are the health benefits of sex, besides relieving stress and helping you fall asleep? Studies have shown that regular sex has a protective effect on the heart, lowering the risk of heart attack in men. For both men and women, “It increases blood flow to the genitals and probably helps the immune system,” Herbenick says. “All things being equal, it’s also fun when things are going well [in your relationship.]”
''So abstaining – especially long-term – can carry some physical consequences. In women, it can cause the atrophying of underused vaginal or hip muscles, Lindau says. Vaginismus is a common condition characterized by hypersensitivity of the muscles around the opening of the vagina, she adds. Those muscles – along with the pelvic floor muscles – are important for controlling penetration, and they need to be in a relaxed state during sexual intercourse. If they are hyper-contracted – not necessarily from abstinence itself, but accumulated fear or anticipation of the first sexual experience – sex can be very painful. “They say it feels like he’s hit a wall,” Lindausays, adding that vaginismus can be treated.''

I said refute me, but instead you give me extra arguments. Thank you so much. --[[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 14:20, 1 December 2018 (EST)
:Neither of us are arguing that sex is bad or harmful -- all of the articles I cited said that sex can be good, but abstinence can also be good. You're committing a fallacy by assuming that just because sex is good means that abstinence is bad.
:Unless you get STDs or anything like that from sex, it is just as good as abstinence. The articles made it clear that abstinence does not have harmful side-effects. You need to read the cited articles better. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 1 December 2018 (EST)
::: I guess the only real way to settle this is to get actual data from the field. [[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 15:18, 1 December 2018 (EST)
::::Makuta, are you pushing sex outside of marriage between husband and wife in this website? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 15:37, 1 December 2018 (EST)
:::::No, I'm pushing for knowledge of the dangers of lifelong abstinence. But even if I was, then there's nothing you can do about it so why are you asking? --[[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 20:22, 1 December 2018 (EST)
::::::"''dangers of lifelong abstinence''" -- That's ridiculous, and choosing not to have sex (especially outside of heterosexual marriage) is normal, and sex outside of marriage can actually be dangerous (if there are STDs involved). Many people have been abstinent and turned out just fine. You're distorting the facts to make it seem like it's a necessity to have sex in order to be healthy, and if you don't there's a medical problem, when in reality neither option is inherently harmful.
::::::"''But even if I was, then there's nothing you can do about it''" If I'm understanding you correctly, as admins, we can do something about it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:44, 1 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::"''If I'm understanding you correctly, as admins, we can do something about it.''"

:::::::Haha! '''Can'''... --[[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 21:34, 1 December 2018 (EST)

::::::::Want me to turn it into a "'''Will'''"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:54, 1 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::::Action without cause. To pardon is true power but you have nothing to pardon, I'm giving you no trouble. --[[User:Makuta Makaveli|Makuta Makaveli]] ([[User talk:Makuta Makaveli|talk]]) 22:01, 1 December 2018 (EST)

Makuta Makaveli either has an agenda, or gets his/her information from people who have an agenda to promote casual sex by making abstinence look like a "health hazard." The Atheist YouTuber "MrRepzion" also claimed that one needed to have "trial sex" to see if the two are "sexually compatible." It would help CP if the articles had information debunking these claims [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:08, 2 December 2018 (EST)

:Most people argue that there is "no harm" in casual sex--that has become a common claim (although some say is is risky due to STDs). Because of this, there are plentiful materials arguing that claim. However, it is much harder to find support for this claim that is is actually unhealthy to abstain by choice. I've seen a few unscientific blog posts, etc. about it, but nothing verifiable. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist (there is always someone willing to write a paper on some fringe belief which people want to hear--just look at chocolate, for example, where they like to disregard the health costs of sugar and just look at the pure chocolate, which by the way tastes pretty bad on its own) but I'm not finding proof.
:Shobson20, the "try it before you buy it" idea is certainly nothing new in personal relationships. I suspect you are correct in linking these two, as people who would like to engage in this practice would like to have something like this to point to as a defense for their actions. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:54, 3 December 2018 (EST)

== Why did I get blocked by "Minuteman?" ==

I was fixing the damage that "My password is green" was doing. I sometimes notice vandals before CP's admins do, and sometimes I try to help. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (EST)

:I replied to your email. You did nothing wrong. Thank you for your vigilance, and I apologize for this! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:30, 15 December 2018 (EST)

::What are the qualifications for becoming a sysop on this site? I would like to be able to help by stopping the trolls and vandals who frequently attack this site. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:38, 15 December 2018 (EST)

:::As best I can tell, there is no official criteria. However, this page might be useful to answer some basic questions: [[Conservapedia:User_rights]]. Typically, SysOp rights are given to users who have been editing for some time, and proven themselves trustworthy. I don't think there is a specific checklist that you can do, to get these rights. However, the one responsible for promotions is [[User:Aschlafly]], so you might be able to get a better idea from him as to what he specifically looks for. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:59, 15 December 2018 (EST)

I too have just been blocked by {{user|Minuteman}}. I copied over the WP article for [[anarcho-conservatism]], which the WP zealots are about to delete. The text there is mine, though most of the article is still in quotes from references, as more text is needed (hence why I brought it here). — [[User:WisdomTooth3|WisdomTooth3]] ([[User talk:WisdomTooth3|talk]]) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (EST)

:You were blocked for one hour so we could review what you were doing, because you were importing a page from WP which looked a bit like plagiarism. Since it is your own writing, then you may recreate that page, but it could use some improvements. Namely, the quotes themselves can use work, as they do not provide context. If you intend to make further improvements to the page, then we welcome our efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:29, 1 January 2019 (EST)
::Per [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]]'s suggestion, recreated it [https://www.conservapedia.com/User:WisdomTooth3/Sandbox/Anarcho-conservatism here]. Not sure when I'll be able to improve it. Please feel free to chip in. — [[User:WisdomTooth3|WisdomTooth3]] ([[User talk:WisdomTooth3|talk]]) 03:20, 2 January 2019 (EST)

:::Thank you! I am not a subject matter expert on that topic, so I don't know how much help I can be, but I will look it over later. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (EST)
::::By the way, it is probably not helpful for the article to link to itself. Unless they point to a specific part of the page, they should probably be removed. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:42, 2 January 2019 (EST)

== Merge proposal ==

What do you think about this merge request: [[Talk:Carbon cycle (astronomy)]]? I am inclined to support it, but it's probably a good idea to get more than one opinion on it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:32, 29 December 2018 (EST)

:I've never really studies that specific topic, but the proposal sounds fine to me. I looked up "carbon cycle" and found a great deal of information, but on the wrong topic. From my limited understanding, a merge sounds like a good idea. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:30, 29 December 2018 (EST)
== tag at bottom of pages "quotation templates" ==

Many of the content pages I create use quotes of other web content. At the bottom of the articles I created using quotes, there is a tag at the bottom of the pages indicating "quotation templates". This is a new and unwanted development.

For example, please look at the bottom of this web page: [[Atheism and mental illness]].

Can we get the "quotation templates" tag to not be there. Before they never used to be there. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:37, 29 December 2018 (EST)

:I made a small mistake, but cannot fix it until [[:template:cquote]] is unlocked again. I'm sorry about that--I should have noticed sooner. Someone needs to add the "noinclude" tags to the category link. If someone unlocks the page, I will fix the issue. Again, sorry about that! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:23, 29 December 2018 (EST)
::I unlocked the page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:25, 29 December 2018 (EST)

:::Thanks, I believe I fixed it. You can lock it again. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:36, 29 December 2018 (EST)
::::Thanks for fixing the issue. I appreciate it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:37, 29 December 2018 (EST)

:::::Any time! Thanks for pointing it out! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:46, 29 December 2018 (EST)

== Request ==

Would you please check [[Alejandro Garcia Padilla]] for originality? It could be, but many of the refs are formatted like on Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:34, 30 December 2018 (EST)

:Of course! It definitely originated from WP. Slightly edited, but still copied. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_García_Padilla --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (EST)

::You beat me to it. Obvious copy from WP, with slight alterations. You don't need to check reference format; just check the text. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 20:19, 30 December 2018 (EST)

:::Would you please delete all the portions that are copied? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:42, 30 December 2018 (EST)

::::I'll take another look, but I think the whole thing needs to go. Also, this is not the first time. See: [[User_talk:HectorCruz66#Originality]] --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:45, 30 December 2018 (EST)
:::::Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore you, Sam. Thanks for checking also! You're right--just looking at the pages shows all you need to know. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:54, 30 December 2018 (EST)
::::::Deleting it, then, is the best option. Would you please do that? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (EST)

:::::::Sure. I'm still looking at it, but sure, I'll delete it unless I find a reason not to. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:37, 30 December 2018 (EST)

Would you please check the page [[James Ritchey]] to see if there's anything problematic (in general, not just originality, since it's two sentences long)? If there's nothing, I guess we can keep it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:45, 17 January 2019 (EST)

:Well, he exists. It seems he's a small-time actor who has been in a few movies I've never heard of, and is barely active on YouTube. This does seem to be relatively original text...all two sentences of it.
:So on to the negative, I firstly find the wording "internet celebrity" rather questionable. I don't see anything suggesting that title. I could be missing something, but from what I'm seeing, he looks more like a wannabe celebrity. Each of his youtube videos has between 1K and 7K views. Assuming those views were not farmed, that still seems a ways away from the numbers a celebrity would have. He second most viewed video seems to be review of a water bottle....I didn't watch it to find out if it is sponsored.
:I suspect he is trying to make a name for himself, which slots this "article" into a suspicious category anyway.
:Bottom line, there is nothing blatantly wrong, but I see why you were questioning it. This smells fishy. I'd be included to nuke it for a lack of notability, but I'm okay with keeping it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (EST)

::Oh, and a couple search engines (at least Yahoo and Yandex [and therefore DuckDuckGo]) have already crawled this page, and added it to the first page of results from searching his name. I used a clean OS and browser, so no user history bias there. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:44, 17 January 2019 (EST)

:::If you think that page is an advertisement (which is very likely), then I am perfectly fine deleting it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:18, 17 January 2019 (EST)

::::Ok, I think I'll delete it then. Too many suspicious factors. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:44, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Assuming we should keep this essay (I shouldn't jump to conclusions), it should be moved so we have a colon: [[Essay History of racism and the Democrats]]. Unrelated, there's no mention of how Reconstruction Democrats passed gun control laws to prevent black people from engaging in self-defense. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:48, 18 January 2019 (EST)

:I hadn't gotten the chance to review it yet. I'm moved the page, but I think it might be helpful to keep the redirect for the moment. This seems like a reasonably good essay, so I'm find with keeping it. I will send you an email shortly. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (EST)

Hello DavidB4, I am wondering if any of these images would be acceptable for me to upload (regarding licensing): [https://twitter.com/VP/status/1085692630246350848][https://twitter.com/scavino45/status/1010232867501363200][https://twitter.com/vp/status/1010293228619419648] Also, I am wondering if you know of any free images of the Trump Administration deployment of troops along the border with Mexico late last year? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (EST)

:Hi, Twitter is always a little iffy, but these are probably okay. Firstly, images made by an employee of the U.S. government as a part of their duties are automatically in the Public Domain. Secondly, a number of other users here republish twitter images under "Fair use." The first one is ideal, so if this is the case as it looks, use one or more of them for this reason.
:I do not know of any images of troops at the border, and couldn't find any good ones after a quick check. I will look a little more later. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:06, 20 January 2019 (EST)
::Thanks! Would you please look over this image to make sure there aren't any problems? [[:File:Donald Trump Angel Families.jpg]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:46, 21 January 2019 (EST)

:::Any time! I do find it a little questionable that Pence took that photo. However, if it was one of his aids, it is still PD. However, if it was taken by the press, it is probably not. I don't know if there is a way to find out who actually took it, since this is a Twitter post. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (EST)

::::I don't know where to find who took the picture. I'm assuming it's his office, since I don't see why his office would rely on the media for such a picture.

::::Also, I don't know where else to find a picture of this specific event. I checked the White House's Flickr page, among other pages, but couldn't find anything. If you are able to find a better image, I would appreciate it (you don't have to, though). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 21 January 2019 (EST)

:::::I'm not having much luck either. Let's just go with what you have. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:50, 21 January 2019 (EST)

::::::OK. I wish it were easier to find a free picture of this event, but oh well. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (EST)

:::::::Considering all of the cameras in that room, it does seem surprising. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (EST)
:::::::Oh, second person to the left of Trump is Pence, so he definitely was not holding the camera :) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (EST)

Hello DavidB4, would you please check the newly-created article [[Athanasio Celia]] for originality, and to make quality improvements if you have the time? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:10, 9 February 2019 (EST)

:Hello, it looks like this is a (perhaps slightly revised) copy of an old version of the WP page on the subject. I did not dig through WP, but I'm seeing matches to here: [https://www.amazon.com/Athanasio-Celia/e/B07BG9GB3J%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share] which is an Amazon page quoting WP, and here: [https://en.everybodywiki.com/Athanasio_Celia] which is probably plagiarism as well. This was not a complete match anywhere my tools saw--more like a 30% match or so. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:40, 9 February 2019 (EST)
::Do you think it should be deleted? Either way, the page has formatting/copyedit issues. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (EST)

:::It looks like WP deleted it, but "everybodywiki.com" saved a copy. It looks like we should delete it unless we can verify that the original author was the one to post it here. It is worth finding that out first, as it is not uncommon for us to get rescued paged from WP editors. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 9 February 2019 (EST)
::::While we're waiting for the above page to get sorted out, would you please move the page [[Indian struggle]] to [[The Indian Struggle]]? Also, there should probably be a [[Indian Struggle]] page. This whole thing is a mess right now. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (EST)
::::Also, if you would take a look at this page, I would appreciate it: [[Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:38, 11 February 2019 (EST)

:::::I am very busy right now, but have moved that page as requested. I will deal with the other issues soon. If I don't do so within a week, feel free to remind me. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (EST)

::::::Oh dear....Okay, some of that page might be original, but at least some parts, including the fact list are definitely not original. That list is all over the internet. This page: [https://www.libertynation.com/ocasio-cortez-and-the-nazi-connection/] is one possible place this may have come from, but if you take a look at a web search of the any one "fact," you will see that that it is all over the place. It's going to be hard to nail down where it actually came from. In any case, we should challenge it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:05, 12 February 2019 (EST)

== Page improvement ==

Hello DavidB4, it might be worth taking a look at and moving this article: [[Template:Examples of Liberal Bias]]

I think it should probably be moved to a mainspace article or at least have its formatting improved. For example, the template is transcluded in the [[Liberal bias]] article, and if you look at the table of contents, starting at the first "See also" section and below, the template transclusion messes things up. Of course, whether we move this article to mainspace or simply do some formatting fixes, it's going to take some work to get this done. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (EST)

:I see what you mean; it is as if someone wanted this to both be a template and a standalone page. It must be one or the other. If it was unlocked, I think I could fix it to work properly as a template, but it would not be a good standalone page. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:50, 29 January 2019 (EST)
::It looks better to me. What do you think...Have I missed any issues? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:27, 29 January 2019 (EST)
:::Looks good to me! The only issue is the double space below the template, as you can see at the [[Liberal bias]] article -- this isn't a big deal, though. It seems to me that the "See also" link on the template is kind of useless (unless someone directly accesses the template, and considering the [[Examples of Liberal Bias]] redirect, that might happen). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)
::::Good point, I'd missed that spacing issue, but I think I've fixed it now. That see also link is not included when the page is transcluded, but only shows on the template page itself. I figured that was a reasonable compromise. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (EST)
:::::I think it is a reasonable compromise -- thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 29 January 2019 (EST)

== Article move request ==

It might be worth considering moving [[Jane Samantha Fae]] to [[Jane Francesca Fae alias John Ozimek]] -- that's what User:GraceDalrymple did, but how she did it was very poor, simply blanking one page and creating the other one, and she didn't make the first page a proper redirect. For the record, this page appears to be of someone born a male and who now identifies as a woman, so the current female name title may not be appropriate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (EST)
:I'm willing to make the move, but this name makes it sound like "John Ozimek" is the alias, while "Jane Francesca Fae" is the real name. Jane should be first in such a page name, though, since that's probably what someone is going to search for. If I was making the page, I would probably just call it "Jane Francesca" or else put something parenthetical afterwards, like "Jane Francesca Fae (John Ozimek)". If you think "Jane Francesca Fae alias John Ozimek" is best, though, I'll do it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (EST)
::I'm thinking it should simply be moved to his real name, John Ozimek, just like the [[Bradley Manning]] and [[Bruce Jenner]] articles were done. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:16, 2 March 2019 (EST)
:::Tempting, as we all know that's he still is. However, his legal name is now "Jane," so I'm not sure if we should leave that out altogether. We could. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:58, 3 March 2019 (EST)

::::How about this: [[John Ozimek (Jane Samantha Fae)]]? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:48, 3 March 2019 (EST)

Would you please take a look here: [[Talk:Newfoundland]]? This article might have to be moved. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:55, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

:Confirmed, that's the name now, so I moved it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:13, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

== Great work! ==

Great work in adding those references to [[benefits of capitalism]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 13:30, 28 March 2019 (EDT)
:Thanks! It could use some more work, but it's progress. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:40, 28 March 2019 (EDT)

== [[World History Study Guide from 1648]] ==

This article contains a wrong info. "(1923) created the modern state of Turkey, with a combination of military rule and an elected Parliament; also converted the Arabic language to a modern, Latin-style alphabet". Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Turk and he converted the Turkish language to Latin-style alphabet. Please correct it. Thank you. - [[User:Andrewlee|Andrewlee]] ([[User talk:Andrewlee|talk]]) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

:I know very little about that page or the history it speaks of, but that page is locked from editing by anyone other than full administrators, so I cannot make this change in any case. You could try asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]] for assistance with this. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:29, 10 April 2019 (EDT)
==Image upload requests==
I requested to upload several images for an essay I am writing and have gotten no reply. Can you please help me? --[[User:ProudGator|ProudGator]] ([[User talk:ProudGator|talk]]) 09:30, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

:Hi, I noticed your request, and I will get to it. Typically, requests are taken in the order they are received, and we have a substantial backlog of request right now. I will do these two soon, but in the future, I will take them in order to be fair to the others making upload requests. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:55, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

::I've uploaded three of them. However, the last one you requested is owned by National Geographic, which specifically states that we cannot republish their content. (See [[CP:IUR]] for more information.) --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:27, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

== Image upload ==

If yo could upload one of the images I linked to on Andrew Schlafly's talkpage that'd be great! [[User:JohnSelway|JohnSelway]] ([[User talk:JohnSelway|talk]]) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (EDT)
:Sure: [[:File:Jacinda Ardern, 2018.jpeg]]
:If you need any more done, feel free to add the request to the bottom of [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:00, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

== Look at this edit ==

Please look at this edit: [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=1519161&oldid=1516763 DavidB4 and Conservapedia]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:39, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

:Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:37, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

==Bay of Pigs switch==
Should the page [[Bay of Pigs]] actually be [[Bay of Pigs invasion]]? One is a place, the other is a historical event. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:56, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

:Yes, this should be clarified--thanks for pointing it out! This is a large page with many contributors, so I've put the move template on it as a prior announcement. If no one objects or makes other suggestions, I will move it soon. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:24, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

::Sounds good to me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:27, 5 May 2019 (EDT)

== Editing question ==

Hi DavidB4 and the others!

I just created an account a few days ago and have been doing some adding of pages and editing. Unfortunately, I think I might have gotten a little carried away and did some editing to a page that wasn't mine (Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor) without taking time to check up on editing etiquette. So that I know for future reference, is it generally expected that you shouldn't do significant editing without talking to the original author first?

My apologies to the author; I hope you'll forgive it as just a case of over-enthusiasm.

-Teakin88

:Hi Teakin88, Welcome to Conservapedia! 
:I see nothing unfortunate about some initiative to improve an article--good work! If you are going to make a major point-of-view change, or do something potentially controversial, it would probably be a good idea to first ask on the respective article talk page. If no one objects, then go for it. For general, non-controversial expansions like this, there shouldn't typically be any need to ask. It should also be noted that no one really "owns" articles. There are some articles in which a single editor has made a significant investment (1990'sguy and the [[Donald Trump achievements]] articles come to mind). In those cases, would probably be the courteous thing to do to ask before removing, changing, or contradicting preexisting content. Also, if you plan to change the perspective of an article (i.e., changing the Donald Trump article to say he's a traitor, lair, and jerk) you should probably ask first. However, in most cases, you can just go ahead and make improvements where you see the need. If someone disagrees with an edit you made, they will probably revert that edit and let you know. In that case, respect the senior editor, talk to them, and come to some agreement. I hope this clarifies the matter. If in doubt, it never hurts to ask. Contrary to popular belief, it's often better to ask for permission than forgiveness. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:58, 8 May 2019 (EDT)

::One extra thing -- even for non-controversial changes, I strongly recommend always citing reliable sources. This is helpful as they increase CP's reputability, and they are helpful for readers who want to research a certain topic further in-depth. Thanks for your edits, Teakin88. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:17, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

:::A very good point--yes, please include references. If you used any sources, even just for a basic understanding of the subject, they should always be cited. If you do not have any, I still suggest you do a little research, and find a good source which supports what you are writing. Common knowledge does not need to be cited (i.e. "red is a color") but when you are making an assertion which some reads may not have already known, try to cite it. It shouldn't be particularly difficult, just list the source, such as a URL, and perhaps the date you retrieved it. You are welcome to use any formal citation style, but you are not required or expected to do so. Most editors just paste the link inside of <code><nowiki><ref> </ref></nowiki></code> tags after the statement being referenced. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

==Historical revisionism and revisionism==
These two pages [[Revisionism]] and [[Historical revisionism]] are basically the same topic and ought to be merged under the banner of the second. I'll start expanding the revisionism page into general themes afterward. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:32, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

:That sounds good to me. I'll be a bit busy for the next 4-5 days, but I will merge these when I get the chance. If you want, feel free to move over the valuable content from [[Revisionism]] yourself, and make is page a redirect. Otherwise, I'll do it when I can. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:16, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

::Done: [[Historical revisionism]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:33, 14 May 2019 (EDT)

== Email is bouncing ==

I sent a message to your email, and it bounced. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (EDT)

:That's odd! I checked over things on my end, and everything seems to look right. Are you attempting the address listed on my user page? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:51, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
:I was able to send a test message there successfully. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:38, 14 May 2019 (EDT)
::I used the address on your user page, and I get a message from "Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>" that says "Message not delivered
There was a problem delivering your message to davidb4-cp@archnet.us. See the technical details below, or try resending in a few minutes.

The response from the remote server was:
550 Mail to davidb4-cp@archnet.us has been suspended" [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:58, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

:::Oh, that's my old address. It now bounces emails due to spam. Sorry for the trouble! I changed that public address last December. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:07, 16 May 2019 (EDT)

== Thank you! ==

Thank you for recreating [[User:Ahmed Samoa|my user page]]! [[User:Ahmed Samoa|Ahmed Samoa]] ([[User talk:Ahmed Samoa|talk]])

== A communist troll ==

A Communist troll who first used the Username "MarxistLeninist" is repeatedly making sock accounts and just won't get the message and go away. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:54, 14 July 2019 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:37, 15 July 2019 (EDT)

== Mormons are Christian. ==

Hi, I was reading the page about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I am LDS (Mormon) and this article contains false things about the Church. It quotes Dr. James White, a Christian pastor, who is NOT MORMON and has written many anti-Mormon articles. White does not understand what the Church is about and he claims Mormons are not Christian. We are Christian! People like White and others from mainstream Christian churches misunderstand the doctrines of the LDS Church! I am a convert to the LDS church and there are SO many misconceptions about the Church, things taken out of context and distorted. It's disappointing that a site like this would perpetuate these false accusations. I would like to be able to edit the article if I could, since I am an actual Mormon. I don't know how to go about doing that.

Thank you,

Cindy

:It's understandable that you want to support your church, but why are you trying to isolate Dr. White? You've reduced his contributions to virtually nothing. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 13:04, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

::Thanks for reaching out! I am not personally an expert on Mormonism, so I might not be the right person to ask. However, I will be blunt with you: it seems that Mormonism is classified by many as cult for good reason. For example:
::*The Bible says that there is only one God (for example, see: Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 45:5). Mormonism, however, says that:
::**there are many gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163)
::**There is a mother goddess (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443)
::*The Bible teaches that God is an eternal, infinite being, who created man in His (spiritual) image, but was never himself a man. Mormonism teaches that:
::**God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
::**"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22)
::**God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
::**"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
::Furthermore, it teaches that after you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354), which is outright blasphemy. This sounds like what is written in Genesis 3:5: "For God knows that when you eat from [the tree] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil," which was spoken by Satan.

::Mormonism is based on Christianity, but so is Islam. Adding new things to Christianity and abrogate parts of scripture is pretty much what cults specialize in. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:17, 22 July 2019 (EDT)

== Article move requests ==

Should the article [[The mossadil]] be kept? If so, please move it to [[The MossadIL]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:49, 7 August 2019 (EDT)
:Initially, this sounded rather like something not notable enough to have an article. However, the account has over 115,000 followers at present. That sounds like a high number, although of course followers can be farmed. Honestly, I pay very little attention to Twitter...do you think that compared to the rest of Twitter, this is notable enough to keep? I find it a little odd having a page about a twitter account, but I'm okay with keeping it. If we do, though, I wonder if a more descriptive name might be better. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:21, 8 August 2019 (EDT)
::115,000 followers doesn't seem that high to me. Trump has over 62 million followers, John Bolton is nearing 700,000, and Matteo Salvini and Nigel Farage of Europe both have over 1 million (see [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]]). If the article is notable otherwise, that's fine, but I don't think the number of followers makes it notable. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 05:41, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

:::Ok, then I say delete it. It might be a good twitter account, but I don't see anything else that makes it notable. There is also a web store behind this account, so there is some monetary motivation for promotion. The account that wrote this CP article is probably not a single-use promo account, but rather probably a good-faith editor. However, I don't think this qualifies as something worth publishing a page about. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:38, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

::::Thanks for deleting.

::::Also, would you please move the newly-created [[Emu war]] article (created, I think, by the same user) to capitalize the "w"? Also, this article needs a massive amount of improvement, and I don't have time at the moment to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:56, 9 August 2019 (EDT)

:::::Good suggestion. As I guess you already noticed, I expanded it somewhat and moved it per your request. There is a great deal more which could be written about this topic, but at least the basics are there for now. Also, I think I will go ahead and make the History category you tried to use. That seems like one which could be useful. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:43, 12 August 2019 (EDT)

== Help:I've been blocked by Minuteman for creating Fredogate page ==
Can someone please help so I can improve the page I started? I've been blocked by Minuteman for creating Fredogate page. No explanation was given and I find his censoring very frustrating since this incident some media personalities call Fredogate, is widely covered in youtube.--[[User:Bearbrau|Bearbrau]] ([[User talk:Bearbrau|talk]]) 19:15, 14 August 2019 (EDT)
:My apologies for that--you did nothing wrong. You were automatically blocked for a 2-hour duration so that we could review your activity—it was nothing personal. Conservapedia gets its fair share of vandalism and internet trolls, so we need to be careful. I noticed this issues and unblocked you seven minutes later, but not before it was an inconvenience. (You were only able to post on our talk pages because you were unblocked.) You may continue where you left off, and should have no further trouble of this sort. If you have any specific questions or concerns, fell free to contact me by email. However, you should be all set to proceed, and this will not be counted against you. Again, Sorry about that! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:26, 14 August 2019 (EDT)

== Two questions/requests ==

Hello DavidB4, would you please take a look at the article [[Mainstream conservative]]? I don't know if this page is to be kept, but it would need significant reworking as it seems rather opinionated. Maybe it should be moved to the "essay" namespace?

Also, would you please keep an eye on the draft [[User:RobSteff/Slovakia]]? It seems like the editor wants to redo CP's [[Slovakia]] page, but some of the intro wording [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovakia&oldid=910323397 mirrors the WP article] way too closely. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:20, 18 August 2019 (EDT)

:Hi 1990'sguy!
:I rarely see [[Mainstream conservative]], [[movement conservative]], populist conservatives, etc. well defined in comparison to other types of conservatives. If the content here is accurate (I have not verified it, but have no specific reason to doubt it), I think there could be some value in keeping this. As you say, though it will of course need at the very least to be wikified, and should really have some references. It could be considered a subjective explanation and thus an essay, but I think this could be done as a standard article. We do also have an article for [[Movement conservative]]s already, so this might fit in where it is, given a little more work. Do you disagree, though?

:I will also try to keep an eye on the Slovakia article...good idea. It seems promising that this users replied to your comment about copyright/copy-and-paste. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:38, 18 August 2019 (EDT)

::Also, I will note that I'm not sure if Mainstream conservative should focus quite so much on Trump support/opposition. Trump certainly is getting people to show their true colors, but this seems better suited as a separate example, rather than the main point of discussion. Trump will, either in 2020 or 2024, leave office, but chances are, the concept of mainstream conservatives will continue, so I would prefer to see our article on this being more about principles than support/opposition of one person in 2016-2020. I'll post this on that article's talk page as well. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:53, 18 August 2019 (EDT)

==Move request==
Can we move this [[Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents]] to [[Parable of the Talents]]? For the most part (with some minor editing) this could be an actual useful article instead of yet another editorial. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 19 August 2019 (EDT)
:I'm generally happy to help move things, but as this is Andy's Essay, I wonder if perhaps he should be asked first. Generally, essay space offers special allowances and exceptions which mainspace does not. At present, this piece reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, so it would need a little editing if it was moved. If he is fine with this, then sure...I would be happy to move it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:48, 19 August 2019 (EDT)

In the meantime (and not to distract from the above), would you please move [[:Category:British royal family]] to capitalize the last two words? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:01, 19 August 2019 (EDT)
:1990'sguy: Good suggestion--I've moved it as you asked. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:38, 19 August 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks! Would you please also look at the move request at [[Talk:Kosice]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:22, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

:::Thanks for pointing that out! I used to be able to monitor all activity on CP, but my availability has decreased such that I can only check retroactively for highlights now. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:14, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

== Article assessment ==

Hello DavidB4, would you please take a look at the newly-created article [[Cruz Derangement Syndrome]]? Is it notable enough to keep, and if so, would it need any other improvements? Also, while I generally like Cruz (with certain exceptions such as trade and his support for a liberal appellate judge in 2014), I know that CP "officially" takes a more critical stance toward him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:20, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

:Hi 1990'sguy, ''I might step on some toes with this reply, but here goes--don't take this the wrong way.'' I was looking at that earlier, and have been thinking about it. Of course, it needs some style fixes, and some categories. As for the content, this seems more like a joking or borderline humor article/essay, rather than an encyclopedia article, but then again, [[Trump Derangement Syndrome]] does to some extent as well, but we still have that. Some people do have a very strong reflexive response to Cruz which does in many cases seem somewhat unjustified, so I think this may be valid thing to write about in some form.
:The fact of the matter is that neither of these "syndromes" are actual medical conditions or syndromes--this is hyperbole. I question whether that belongs in an encyclopedia, and particularly, the title of an article. Then again, we also use a similar tactic sometimes in reference to scandals (or should-be scandals) by throwing "gate" on the end of it (i.e. [[Obamagate]], [[Muellergate]], [[Climategate]], etc.) which can itself seem rather unprofessional. Basically, I don't like the hyperbole/clickbait title--it seems gimmicky. However, there is something here to be written about, and this will probably fit right in among the others I mentioned (and many more I didn't) --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:44, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

::At least in the case of TDS, that's a term that is now common among conservatives, so it's not like CP made up the term when creating the article. I'm not sure about the other articles you mentioned, but I never heard of the term "Cruz Derangement Syndrome" before seeing this article. However, I won't delete the article and will improve it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

:::Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention, then...I've never heard the TDS term anywhere other that CP. I guess I can go either way on CDS. I don't like the terminology, and I generally don't like inventing terms. However, I have no problem with writing about this opposition to Cruz, in some way. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:42, 6 September 2019 (EDT)
::::Actually, it looks like CDS isn't quite a new term either: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Cruz+Derangement+Syndrome] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:48, 6 September 2019 (EDT)

What do you think about this article: [[Team plasma]]? It doesn't seem notable to me, but maybe it can be kept? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:35, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

:I agree, it doesn't seem particularly notable. If we keep it, it should be renamed, but I'm not really convinced it is worth having around. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (EDT)

::I just deleted it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 07:49, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

:::Also, I don't know how much you know about this technology company, but do you think the recent edits on this article are positive (I think they probably are, but I want to make sure): [[AMD]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:41, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

::::Thanks. I think those edits were well-intentioned. There was a little bit of an oversight there (the posted market share only included one of two types of product), but I corrected it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:07, 9 September 2019 (EDT)

How should we deal with this article: [[Joel gilbert]]? It's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Gilbert&oldid=914351777 a copy of a particular version of the Wikipedia article] (compare with even earlier diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Gilbert&oldid=747121431][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Gilbert&oldid=912556288]) -- an editor tried to change (or revert?) the article to his liking, was reverted, and brought his version here. Besides the capitalization error ("gilbert"), is the article appropriate to keep here? I'm leaning delete, but I'm not sure since it isn't the current or accepted Wikipedia version. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:32, 10 September 2019 (EDT)

:If it was all original content, I would seriously consider keeping it. However, certain parts were not written by this individual. If we chop out the plagiarized parts (everything not added in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joel_Gilbert&type=revision&diff=914351777&oldid=914306698 this edit]), this isn't going to be a very good article, since the intro paragraph is the first to go. Either a rewite of these portions is needed, or unfortunately, the whole thing needs to go.
:There are also a few typographical errors (such as the title you pointed out, "'''eared'''" rather than earned, etc.) and a few other improvements which could be made. However, these are not worth making unless the plagiarized material is removed. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:19, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
::Would you please make those changes (assuming you have the time and will to do so--if you don't, that's OK)? I'm devoting my CP time right now to work on my Donald Trump achievements project and would rather not spend much time on maintenance work. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (EDT)
:::Are the editor's changes sufficient? Upon his request, I deleted the old article title, so please see [[Joel Gilbert]]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:22, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
::::Also, in addition to my comment above, I am wondering (assuming you have the time to do so) if you can find any other free images of Trump's meeting with Hungary's prime minister [[Viktor Orban]] this May,[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trump_amerikai_eln%C3%B6k_%C3%A9s_Orban_Viktor_magyar_minisztereln%C3%B6k.jpg] including on Twitter, Facebook, or wherever. I could only find this image, and I'm not sure even about that because it was uploaded only a few days ago by an apparently new editor and doesn't show licensing information. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
:::::Apologies, I've been quite busy lately. Most of Joel Gilbert looks pretty good now, but the first paragraph is heavily plagiarized. IF that gets re-written, then we should be all set. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:21, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

:::::As far as photos go, it looks like most news outlets are using Getty Images. They buy a copy of the photo, then own it royalty-free. That means that if we could find a new outlet with a loose copyright policy, we could use it. Unfortunately, most of them have a TOS document a mile long adding prohibitions on top of U.S. copyright law. The only thing I found was [https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/13/president-trump-welcomes-prime-minister-of-hungary-viktor-orban-to-white-house-video-and-transcript/ this], which does not seem to have a set of TOS. This means that only copyright law applies, and theoretically, we could use it under the Fair Use clause. Do you agree? Does that look and sound good enough? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
::::::I don't know much about copyright law, so I will trust your and Andy's judgments on this. If there aren't any better images, that one is what I will upload. Thanks for checking! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:36, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

:::::::Well, I'm no expert on copyright law either...I'm learning as I go. Actually though, here is one which would be legally safer to use, and doesn't have mics in the frame: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trump_amerikai_eln%C3%B6k_%C3%A9s_Orban_Viktor_magyar_minisztereln%C3%B6k.jpg] Maybe you were looking for something other than what WP/MW have though. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:41, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
::::::::That is the same image that I linked above -- I found it before messaging you, and I asked you if you were able to find other images because this one was uploaded only a few days ago by a new user and doesn't include licensing information. Because of that, I don't want to upload the image, at least until I'm confident it's OK to load. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

:::::::::Opps, so you did. I looked at it briefly, then went on the hunt. I forgot to check back to make sure that what I found was different. They claim it is under CC, so if you take that at face value, great. However, that's a good point that it may or may not be true. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:56, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

::::::::::If it's uploaded by an experienced editor with believable documentation, I trust it, but if it's a brand new user with poor evidence of proper licensing, I don't trust it. The user linked to some Hungarian website to show where he found the source (the link is a dead link) and claims it's from the website. It could be true, though I can't find any corresponding U.S. government photo. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

Good point. It looks like the [https://web.archive.org/web/20190514152046/https://www.hirado.hu/kulfold/kulpolitika/cikk/2019/05/14/hasonlo-vilagnezetet-kepvisel-donald-trump-es-orban-viktor file did exist there], but I can't tell anything about licensing, since I don't speak Hungarian. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:28, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
:Google Translate or something could help, and I'll try to do it later when I get the time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (EDT)
::Under the photo, it says this: "Viktor Orban and Donald Trump (Photo: MTI / EPA / Solid Costumes)" -- does this mean anything of note? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

:::I figured it was something like that. It doesn't really mean a whole lot to me, but maybe a little. They are crediting the photo to "MTI / EPA / Solid Costumes" which means that it is probably not in the Public Domain. Often, they will use copyrighted photos by permission or contract, so that is probably what is happening in this case. However, I don't know who "MTI / EPA / Solid Costumes" is, so I can't very well track it down. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:37, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

::::OK, thanks. I probably won't upload this image, partially because of the uncertainty over copyright. In addition to this, is this article appropriate to keep: [[Henry ward]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:07, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
::::Never, mind -- that "Henry ward" article is apparently a fake/parody article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:59, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

:::::Okay. "No" is generally the safe option, so if in doubt, it's a good default answer. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:25, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

::::::Is this article appropriate to keep, or should it be deleted: [[Polarity technologies ltd]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

:::::::Nope. I deleted it. The language made it clear that this was an advertising attempt. If they want to make a more fair, unbiased attempt I'll consider it. That, however, was just an ad in the form of a wiki page. I do like that they used a few third party sources, but it still was too one-sided and promotional. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:02, 29 October 2019 (EDT)

::::::::Do you think this article should be deleted, or not? [[Black pigeon speaks]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:48, 8 November 2019 (EST)

It looks a bit like a content dump, and was clearly written by someone not familiar with wiki markup language. This makes it seem more like a ad attempt. However, "Black pigeon speaks" seems to be a legitimate entity online who may be somewhat notable. He has 500k Youtube followers, and 63.6K BitChute followers (both platforms seem to offer the same content). Of course, such numbers can be farmed to some extent. However, he does seem to be at least somewhat conservative based on my very brief research. I could go either way on this article. If we keep it, if obviously needs some clean-up. What do you think? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:46, 9 November 2019 (EST)
:It definitely needs cleanup. I'm still not convinced it's notable to keep since some YouTube personalities have several million followers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:23, 10 November 2019 (EST)

::Yeah, he doesn't seem like anyone particularly notable and differentiating. He might be doing good stuff, but I don't know if that really warrants a CP article about him. This probably stands to benefit him more that our readers. I think I'm leaning towards deletion, but I'd be okay with keeping it if others here see value in it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:51, 10 November 2019 (EST)
:::I recommend deleting it. At the very least, maybe we should let Andy decide? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:49, 10 November 2019 (EST)
::::Alright, sure let's delete it. We could ask Andy just to make sure, but it's probably okay to just do it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:58, 11 November 2019 (EST)
:::::Without getting distracted from the above article, can you tell whether this article is original or plagiarized? [[The Genesis observer theory]] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:23, 12 November 2019 (EST)

It was copied from CreationWiki [http://www.creationwiki.org/Genesis_observer_theory]. That page was mostly written by one author, but some adjustments were made by two others. Plagiarism seems likely, but I will contact the user on this end. I applied for a CreationWiki account awhile back, but it seems my application was rejected or ignored, so I can't ask over there. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:31, 12 November 2019 (EST)
:Note: It was mostly written over there by user "PabloCa2007." The user posting it here is "Pablocastro" --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:33, 12 November 2019 (EST)
::Just based on that, it looks like the page is mostly original, but we'll still need to reach an understanding with the creator (and I saw you already reached out to him). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:37, 12 November 2019 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hey David, just wanted to say thanks for the welcome and the advice on the joel gilbert article. Definitely don't wanna mess up anything so I'll go back and fix it! :) I might need a bit of help with the infobox if you wouldn't mind but I might be able to figure it out. Anyhow thank you so much! Feel absolutely free to let me know if anything needs adjustment
[[User:Manny P90|Manny P90]] ([[User talk:Manny P90|talk]]) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (EDT)Manny

:You're welcome, and thank you for your interest in improving it! One thing still concerns me..the first paragraph doesn't seem to be original. Could you perhaps re-write that intro? As for the template, I'd be happy to try to help you, but our inforbox template is significantly different that Wikipedia's, so you can't do a a simple copy-and-paste of that. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:38, 25 September 2019 (EDT)

== New WP articles ==

Hello DavidB4, when you get the chance, please take a look at these two articles: [[Malik Obama]] and [[Dreams from My Real Father]]. The editor who created them stated that they were copied from Wikipedia articles that have been deleted (thus, they may not be original). I already wrote a very short message to the user. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (EDT)

:Hi 1990'sguy, I noticed those come in, but didn't have the time to investigate then. At the very least, they need cleanup, but I also am suspicious of their originality. There are similarities between [[Malik Obama]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malik_Obama this], and [[Dreams from My Real Father]] looks like a slight rewrite of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Real_Father this], although it could be the other way around. They at least need some cleanup; I'm leaning towards deletion, but this user has responded in the past, so it could be this is slightly more than just a dump and run maneuver. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:11, 4 October 2019 (EDT)
::Would you please also take a look at this article: [[Nicholas J Fuentes]]? It might not be appropriate to keep on CP. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:53, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

:::I don't see any evidence of plagiarism, and it isn't a wreck like some text dumps, so that's a good start. My main concern is with the matter of notability. It seems that he is somewhat publicly recognized, although he doesn't seem to have a great deal of publicity. He also seems to be in this to make a profit--that's not inherently bad (many talk shows and publications are for-profit endeavors, which I don't mind), but it is worth noting that by giving him some much-needed publicity, we may be helping out his profit margin. Based on these factors, I might lean towards deletion. However, while I don't want RW to decide what we do and do not have, I noticed that they do have an article about this guy (although I didn't bother to read their pig slop). What do you think? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:01, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

::::I made some copyedits, though the title might need to be moved. We could keep it, though the wording might need to be changed to make it sound less promotional. Also, I'm having trouble determining whether he's a consistent conservative or an "alt-right" person, though it looks like the former is more accurate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:58, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

:::::I don't know much about him, and all I can find seems to be name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. which are loaded with bias. I will somewhat take back what I said about not much publicity...after digging a bit more, I have found a quantity of the standard liberal attack pieces against him, saying things like "Well, he said on Thursday that he is not a white supremacist and opposes violence, but actually the opposite is true, and random democrat xyz says that he is trying to play the victim here, and not simply being attacked for his views."
:::::It seems he had to leave his college because of these attacks, death threats, etc. after making his political views known. 'm starting to think maybe we should keep an article about him. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:41, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

::::::That sounds good to me, so I'll accept keeping the article, though it may need further improvements. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:11, 6 October 2019 (EDT)

The [[Malik Obama]] and [[Dreams from My Real Father]] still haven't been edited by the article creator. What should we do with them? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

:I've deleted them. If the author disagrees, they can be restored by an admin. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

== Cult leader Adnan Oktar ==

Hi. Could you please upload a picture of [[Harun Yahya|Adnan Oktar]]'s old and new look? I found this picture: [http://www.mavikocaeli.com.tr/resimler/iste-adnan-oktar-in-karanlik-gecmisi-unlu_11038318_39_fe5ee97f1d33bbc62e23.jpg]. Search results: [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNSvWCIzFVBVujBE79-3Cfj1nZt-hA%3A1570459097293&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=625&ei=2U2bXcWiD6SorgS-uanwDQ&q=Adnan+Oktar+eski&oq=Adnan+Oktar+eski&gs_l=img.3..35i39l2j0i30l3j0i8i30.1823.15117..15325...1.0..0.173.2613.0j17......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0.AJMOrW1Xhl8&ved=0ahUKEwiF84CFsIrlAhUklIsKHb5cCt4Q4dUDCAY&uact=5]. If you want, you can upload an old and a new photo of him side by side. Thanks. - [[User:Andrewlee|Andrewlee]] ([[User talk:Andrewlee|talk]]) 10:42, 7 October 2019 (EDT)
:Conservapedia needs to follow copyright laws. Please upload this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adnan_oktar_01.jpg

:I would do it myself, but I have a very full schedule today.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:58, 7 October 2019 (EDT)

::I'll certainly upload this one, Wikignome72. See: [[:File:Adnan oktar 01.jpg]].
::Andrewlee, If we can find a copy of the other which is under a [[Creative Commons]] license, or is in the [[public domain]], that would be good. We might be able to use a copyrighted one under the [[Fair use]] clause, but that is more difficult.
::My favorite places to search for images with relaxed licensing are:
*[https://commons.wikimedia.org Wikimedia commons]
*[https://www.flickr.com/search/?license=2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C9 Flickr.com]
but there any many others also, such as these:
*[https://pixabay.com PixaBay]
*[https://morguefile.com Morguefile.com]
*[http://www.publicdomainpictures.net PublicDomainPictures.net]

::Let me know if you have any luck. Thanks!

== Requesting help with article about our ministry. ==

David, can you help me? I'm trying to edit a page on my organization, Global Media Outreach, which seems to be frequently vandalized. We didn't even add the page on us; just came across it while researching something. When I first found it it was completely negative. Some organization called Billion Bibles seems to have a criticism with us, so I edited our page and just put forth the gospel as we share it on the page so that people can make their own judgment about whether or not we have some kind of deficient version of it (we don't). Last month, the criticism reappeared as a link to the BillionBIbles organization again. They seem desperate to both link to themselves from anyone searching Conservapedia for info about us and to smear us. I don't want to publicly criticize them, just to remove their unjustified criticism of us. Thanks for any help or advice you can provide! [[User:Abranch|Abranch]] ([[User talk:Abranch|talk]]) 13:55, 16 October 2019 (EDT)abranch

:I've heard of BillionBibles before, but know almost nothing about them. However, the article on Global Media Outreach seems to only briefly mention some opposition. The linked BillionBibles page criticizes Global Media Outreach for teaching the "four spiritual laws" which they believe tends towards the "Health, Wealth, and Prosperity Gospel" and leaves out any mention of God's call (and [[predestination]], as some believe) as well as a couple other points. [https://www.billionbibles.com/four-spiritual-laws.html]. These seem like they might be valid criticisms to at least note. Our article as it was simply stated that there was some opposition to Global Media Outreach, without subjectively declaring it to be wrong, so it seems that we were already leaving it up to the reader to decide what to think. I'm also somewhat confused as to why you removed the word "some," making the page basically say that all Christians say that your organization is wrong. I've fine with some rewording or explanation, but I think it is worth keeping some mention of doctrinal disagreements. Conservapedia is read and edited by people of many different beliefs, so we generally try to present both view points and let the reader decide. It sounds like this is what you wanted, and it seems to me, that is what we are doing. Furthermore, the [[Internet_evangelism#Global_Media_Outreach|Internet_evangelism]] page (to which you deleted the link) speaks favorably of Global Media Outreach. I have reverted both of these changes, since they seem to make the problem you are speaking about worse.
:Is there something I'm missing here? If the article is being unfair to Global Media Outreach, then I would be fine with trying to balance it out--I just don't see any specific glaring issues. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:04, 17 October 2019 (EDT)

David, regarding your note on the 16th—you were right. There were edits on the article mentioning us that were telescoping somehow and when I tried to edit one it wouldn't let me because it affected another. I didn't understand and was out of time. So—user error; I'm afraid I'm not a regular contributor, I just try to watch out for slander on us, and this site is about the only example of it I have found on the web. Sometimes slander shows up in overt ways, sometimes subtle. Just look at Wikipedia's article on the Apostle Paul, which includes "Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, who wrote that Paul was the 'first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.' Christian anarchists Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy take a similar view." That's bad enough, because it makes the reader feel as if the page ahs an agenda; but imagine if it were the first point in the entry, as "Criticism of Global Media Outreach" is for us.

:Okay, some little mix-ups are fine. However, I'm not quite sure what you are looking to have changed. I have slightly reworded and expanded the "[[Global_Media_Outreach#Criticism_of_Global_Media_Outreach|criticisms]]" section..what do you think? I don't think we should remove this section altogether, but some changes can be made. In any case, it doesn't really sound like slander to me, as it currently stands. There are many different denominations and doctrines within the christian faith, so it is pretty normal for some to criticize others on certain controversial issues. Thanks for your input! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:21, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

Why was my edit reverted? I know I messed up the citation link thing but I'm new to this. I just think harm reduction is very important. If, for some reason, someone comes here for info on LSD they should know about something that is pretty common and could ruin their experience.
[[User:Yaoi|Yaoi]] ([[User talk:Yaoi|talk]]) 08:52, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

:You deleted a significant amount of content (over 2KB) with that edit. See: https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=LSD&diff=prev&oldid=1589093
:Your addition was probably fine, but make sure not to remove everything else. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (EDT)

==Thomas Heyward==
These should probably be merged. [[Thomas Heyward Jr.]] [[Thomas Heyward]]. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 21:53, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
:Yeah, it should be. Good catch. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:16, 1 November 2019 (EDT)
::I've merged them. The result is here: [[Thomas Heyward Jr.]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:26, 1 November 2019 (EDT)

==Delete and move==
Could you delete [[Georges Sorel]], and move [[George Sorel]] in its place? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 10:30, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
:I did it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:08, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:57, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
:::You're welcome! Just a note, you will have to do Teakin88's [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=1590504&oldid=1561721 requests] at [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]], since they are not WP Commons images. Otherwise, I would have tried to upload them if I get time (which I don't have a lot of, like you I presume). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:18, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
::::Thanks, yes [[CP:IUR]] is a disaster right now. I may never catch up. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:21, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
:::::If I get some extra time, I will upload some of the easier requests. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:24, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
::::::Thanks! I wouldn't mind, but those are not the big problem, so you don't need to. It's nice when we get some that are PD/CC so I can just breeze through them! It's the copyrighted ones that are a problem. I do my best, but it takes a lot of time and I really am not professionally qualified to make this kind of determination. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:36, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
:::::::I'm considering giving PD/CC requests priority over copyrighted images. People are submitting requests for images that are obviously okay to use, but then waiting months to get them uploaded. It's not really fair to them. I might abandon the first-come, first-served system. I don't know if this would be fair either, though. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:39, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
::::::::It seems like a good idea to me. How many users are requesting PD/CC images versus more complicated requests? If more are requesting the former, but IUR is being backlogged by one or two other editors, prioritizing seems like a good idea to me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:54, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
::::::::Also, it might be a good idea to archive the completed request sections on IUR. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:02, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
At present, we have 1 person regularly asking for PD/CC and two people asking for copyrighted ones. That means this change would mostly benefite that one person. However, in the past (and once in a while) we've have a number of other users (maybe about 4) asking for PD/CC images as well. Not recently, though. Besides, though who make good requests tend to get upload rights of their own. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:45, 2 November 2019 (EDT)

==Disambiguation==
Could you make [[Samuel Huntington]] into a disambiguation page for [[Samuel P. Huntington]] and [[Samuel Huntington (signer)]]? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 12:51, 24 November 2019 (EST)
:Good idea--thanks for pointing that out! Done as requested. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:21, 24 November 2019 (EST)
::Thank you for doing these BTW. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:41, 3 December 2019 (EST)

==Merge request==
[[Cato's Letters]] and [[Cato Letters]]. The correct term/name is '''"Cato's Letters"''',(And [[Cato's Letters]] appears to me to be the better written) but there is some issue with the page views and history/revisions of the two articles that needs consideration. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:45, 2 December 2019 (EST)
:Also, could you switch these? The 'The' is a part of the actual title. [[American Crisis]], [[The American Crisis]] [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:49, 2 December 2019 (EST)
:Of course! Done as requested: [[The American Crisis]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:04, 3 December 2019 (EST)
::Cato's Letters? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:41, 3 December 2019 (EST)
:::Sorry, now I'm doing it. I guess I just read the last post, and assumed the rest was prior conversation. It wouldn't have been that hard to read it...
:::Anyway, I've merged the two to [[Cato's Letters]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:09, 4 December 2019 (EST)
::::Thanks! [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 17:49, 12 December 2019 (EST)

== Permission to use images for conservapedia via e-mail permission from image owner ==
Hi DavidB4, I've worked to create an eighth page here on conservapedia. On my eighth page there are 4-5 sections that need the emphasis of photo info-boxes to elaborate visually to the article from a scientific and creative stance. Images have been granted permission to me for use on conservapedia with no inhibited copyright laws per the image creators via e-mail. These e-mails were the only convenient way to gain permission because of the image owners location and time zone in Finland and in Europe with myself being in North America Pacific time. [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] suggested for me to contact you here about you being an editor who can upload with these e-mail permissions or if I can forward permissions to you, and that you might be willing to have to contact via email with me on this page request for these uploads? Thank you. ([[User talk:Technotronical|talk]]) 23:16, 10 December 2019 (EST)

:Hi Technotronical! Sure, I can help you with that. That's great that you already got permission! Would you please forward the email chain where they gave permission to me (davidb4-public@archnet.us)? Then, I'll just need to know exactly which images it is you want uploaded (if you have the URLs to these images, that would be best), and I should be able to upload them for you. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:27, 11 December 2019 (EST)

:Hi DavidB4, Thank you very much for your help with these. I've sent you the 2 e-mails to (davidb4-public@archnet.us) Please let me know if you need anything else or what I can do to help. Here's the page https://www.conservapedia.com/Red_Hair --[[User_talk:Technotronical|Technotronical]] ([[User talk:Technotronical|talk]]) 20:51, 19 December 2019 (EST)

::Hi Technotronical, I sent you a couple emails in reply on December 12. Did you get those? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:07, 19 December 2019 (EST)

::: Hi DavidB4, I just searched through my e-mail under the address and for that date 12/12... and do not see anything for an e-mail response. Could you please re-send or respond here? --[[User_talk:Technotronical|Technotronical]] ([[User talk:Technotronical|talk]]) 21:25, 19 December 2019 (EST)

::::Odd. I just resent them. You should have received a total of 3 messages from me today. Maybe they are getting caught in your spam trap? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:12, 19 December 2019 (EST)

:::::Yes, very unusual. Thanks for re-sending. I still don't have them and looked in the SPAM quarantine folder. Building the anticipation. Can you please resend to another e-mail address? (mom2lexie_bing_maddie@yahoo.com) --[[User_talk:Technotronical|Technotronical]] ([[User talk:Technotronical|talk]]) 23:44, 19 December 2019 (EST)

::::::Done. If that doesn't work, I'll just post an abbreviated version here. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:28, 21 December 2019 (EST)

::::::: Thank you so much for hanging in here with me. I did get the e-mail at my yahoo inbox. I just replied back. Merry Christmas!!! --[[User_talk:Technotronical|Technotronical]] ([[User talk:Technotronical|talk]]) 23:32, 24 December 2019 (EST)

:Slightly off topic, What was the reason that Minuteman blocked Technotronical? I honestly don't know if there's a back story. Just asking. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (EST)
::I'm obviously not DavidB4, but I'm pretty sure the block has nothing to do with Technotronical or his edits -- the bot blocks users based on whatever criteria is programmed into it, and that means that sometimes, innocent editors are blocked. It's happened before. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (EST)

'''Technotronical:''' I got your email and will reply soon. I have been very busy lately. Also, sorry about Minuteman blocking you without a good explanation. 
'''Progressingamerica/Technotronical:''' Minuteman blocked Technotronical because it detected numerous questionable words and phrases being posted on [[Red Hair]], [[Blockbuster Video]], and [[Let's Make a Deal]]. These were mostly sexual in nature. I am willing to provide details which are not appropriate for polite company, but not on an open talk page. There were also evidences of possible plagiarism going on with [[Red Hair]], so Minuteman didn't like that either. I have set Minuteman to "Trust" Technotronical, so it will be much less likely to issue blocks against this user in the future. 
'''Technotronical:''' I am seeing some material in [[Red Hair]] which seems to have been copied in. I see duplicate content on pages like:
*https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/melanocortin-1-receptor
*The book "Advances in Cancer Research" by Paul B. Fisher and Kenneth D. Tew
*https://www.definitions.net/definition/red+hair
*and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair
Except for short, clearly labeled quotes, you should never use the exact words of other people. Additionally, you should always cite your sources, for any facts or ideas retrieved from other places. 
'''1990'sguy:''' Thanks for the quick response! Again, I've been quite busy the last few weeks. In this case it was a large number of slightly questionable things which triggered Minuteman initially. After blocking a user once, it is more likely to do it again. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:32, 28 December 2019 (EST)

==Delete request==
The misspelling "seige" should not appear in the search bar when typed in. Unless, of course, it is for someone's last name and is then the correct spelling. [[Seigenthaler]]

*[[Seige mentality]] - delete
*[[Seige of Troy]] - delete
[[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 17:50, 12 December 2019 (EST)

:Good catch! I've deleted them. I also created a redirect from [[Siege of Troy]]. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (EST)
::Thanks! Here's another one for delete and move. [[Chisholm v. Georgia]], [[Chisolm v. Georgia]]. The misspelled one should probably be kept for content, and the one I created deleted; then move to the correct spelling. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:12, 27 December 2019 (EST)
:::Done! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:42, 28 December 2019 (EST)

::::Thanks 1990'sguy! I've also deleted the [[Chisolm v. Georgia]] redirect, since I don't think that will be beneficial to keep. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:33, 28 December 2019 (EST)

== Giggle Corp ==

Please see these pages: [[User talk:AmericanIronMan]], [[User talk:AmericanTonyStark]], [[Giggle, Corp.]] (red link, see deletion history), and [[Giggle, Inc.]] (red link, see deletion history) You might have a better idea than me on whether this article is notable enough to have an article on. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:08, 2 January 2020 (EST)

:"Giggle Corp" appears to be a small business (not sure if it's registered as such), and mygiggle.us has been online for less than two months. It's definitely not a big player right now, but it wants to be. The website still seems a bit rough around the edges. Before I make a solid decision, I'm hoping that I can engage this user in conversation. I have a few questions and suggestions for them. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:07, 2 January 2020 (EST)

::Sounds good. I wish Conservative didn't block the first account without engaging with him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:10, 2 January 2020 (EST)

:::Well, he came back so we still can talk. It looks like he's using a proxy connection, which is technically against the rules...then again having a second account is, too. I think he stands to gain a lot more than we do, since we will quite possibly put his service on the map. That means this subject probably falls into the "not sufficiently notable" category. Still, I'm hoping to talk with him. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:36, 2 January 2020 (EST)

::::Thank you sir, for your kind inquiry. I am not trying to necessarily take on Google. Google has its own legitimate following. I am trying to simply offer an alternative to major companies for individuals who would like to maintain a degree of privacy. In a world that is changing so fast, I believe that one of the things that helps us preserve our freedom is our privacy. Privacy should be an option for those who would like to maintain it. It is encouraging to me that there are outlets such as "Conservapedia" that share some of these same ideals. You are correct, our website is new, however it has been in development for three years now. The first very ugly version of it was hosted on a different domain but with the same concept being the respect of privacy of user information. As far as the question you thought might be "stupid", there are no stupid questions and I am grateful for the opportunity to clear up any confusion as to any connection to that Facebook account. Let me make it clear that we are not associated with that user or his affiliates. And as to feedback regarding the website mygiggle.us, any input you have we would greatly appreciate, as we consider your time extremely valuable. Thank you for your consideration and your time. --[[User:AmericanTonyStark|AmericanTonyStark]] ([[User talk:AmericanTonyStark|TALK]]) 20:24, 3 January 2020 (EST)

And thank you for the information! I think such alternatives are valuable. In hopes it will help you out, here is some (hopefully) constructive criticism:

It's great that you are interested in protecting your users' privacy. However, I did find a few things that gave me pause. I suspect your Terms of Service and Privacy Policy might have been made from a template, so perhaps it was not you saying these things.
#Your Privacy policy says that you "may" use web beacons. Why? This is a tracking technology, which seems to go against user privacy.
#Your Privacy policy says that you ignore "Do-not-track" requests. Admittedly, most websites do. You have the standard statement that there is no established industry standard, so you choose to ignore the users' requests for privacy altogether. It's a minor concern in my mind, but it doesn't sound very privacy-friendly. You could at least make sure to set a high privacy standard for all uses, then note in your privacy policy that all users are given the same high standard of privacy, whether or not they request it.
#Your Privacy policy says that you use cookies, but again, most people do. My question (which I did not investigate) is whether or not you use them for any purposes other than logging in users. Cookies must be used if users are going to log in to accounts. However, my concern would be whether or not they are used for any other purpose. Ideally, I would like to see cookies only added to client's devices when they log in. If they don't log in, don't issue a cookie. This might be hard to make happen though--I know web design is complex.
#Your site uses Google Tag manger. If I'm trying to stay away from companies abusing my data, using an alternative site which in turn uses Google services doesn't seem like it might be a good choice.

Other issues I noticed:
*The top-left logo has a background color which does not match the banner it is on. Perhaps you could use an image without a background. That shouldn't be too difficult, but even easier than that would be to at least change the image's background color to match the banner's color, so people don't notice.
*When the "clustered search" option is used, it brings up a list of "F-Clusters." This whole interface seemed a little confusing to me. What is it? How does it work? What does it do? Perhaps a little explanation of some sort, even just in the form of a "Help" link on that search result page might be helpful.
*When looking at your Privacy Policy, there are links at the top of the page to jump to specific section. That is a common thing to have, and I like it. However, when I click on one of those, it breaks out of your site's frame and loads this webpage instead: https://app.termly.io/dashboard/website/305072/privacy-policy

And a couple more comments:
*You are using CloudFlare, which is in itself fine. They seem to offer good services. However, you might want to be aware that they have "de-platformed" numerous conservative services and websites. If they don't like you for political reasons, they will throw you out. You probably won't have issues of this sort, but you might just want to keep that in mind.
*Lastly, your Terms of Service state that anyone other than government agencies and a couple other groups of people must get written approval from you in order to link to your website. Firstly, I don't see how you expect to enforce that. Secondly, why? If low-ranked websites link to you, are are not likely to be benefited in terms of your own page rank. However, this is how the web works...if you want to get noticed, you need people, anywhere and everywhere, to link to your site. It seems odd to me, therefore, that you are trying to prohibit such linking (not that anyone is actually probably going to read that anyway).

I hope your service can succeed! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (EST)
::Thank you for your timely and helpful response. I have to say, you are obviously knowledgeable and thorough, and your input is greatly appreciated. So, Thank You again. I have reviewed your comments regarding the company’s privacy policy (and terms and conditions) and agree with you on every point. I have gone through your list point by point though I still have a few changes to make. I have revised the privacy policy according to the points you recommended. I made the policy using a template and the assistance of termly.io, and there was a point in which I was prompted to answer the question, “Do you want to allow people to link to your website?” At that time, I thought there would be more protection for the site if people did not link to it. As time went on and development of the site continued, I came to the same conclusion as you did, that I would like people to link to the site. My mistake was that I had not returned to my Terms and Conditions to change this. If it wasn’t for you it would have been some time before I would have gone back and reviewed it. --[[User:AmericanTonyStark|AmericanTonyStark]] ([[User talk:AmericanTonyStark|TALK]]) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (EST)

:::Okay, that sounds good--thanks! When choosing a service to use, I typically dig into the service's info some before making a decision. I know that tends to be unusual--most people don't bother to read the TOS, Privacy Policy, and other info. So, it probably isn't a big deal to have a few minor issues of these sorts, as long as you are disclosing everything you need to. Building a web service like this is a pretty big undertaking, so it's easy for a few unimportant things to slip through the cracks.
:::I figured that you probably were using a template or builder for the TOS and PP. It makes sense to do. If you have the time and interest, you could also go so far as to provide short, standard English section summaries. So for example, the section on cookies could perhaps be summarized "We use cookies to keep you logged in. We do not use them to monitor your behavior." I've seen this in some such legal disclosures, so that the full legal jargon is still there, but a simple explanation is also provided. Again though, not many people read those, so it may not be worth your time at this point.
:::In regard to your initial question (whether you can create a page on Conservapedia about your service), it's not me intent to string you along and waste your time. To be clear, I don't think that at this time your service is "notable" enough to warrant this. An encyclopedia is intended to be a collection of public knowledge, not an index of things people probably know nothing about. However, I think with some time and effort, it can soon qualify.
:::There is one other thing I'd like to tell you, but not on a public page such as this. You don't at all need to, but would you be willing and able to email me at davidb4-public@archnet.us ? (This way, you don't need to publicly post your address.) If you prefer not to, that's fine.

:::Thanks for your time! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:20, 8 January 2020 (EST)

== Category clean-up ==

Best of luck with [https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Firearms firearms TAR pit]. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 22:01, 4 January 2020 (EST)

:I haven't looked into it very closely, but some of those sub-categories might be appropriate to delete outright. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:16, 4 January 2020 (EST)

::Gee thanks, JohnZ. 1900'sguy, they might be. I haven't delved too far into it yet, but I suspect so. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:33, 4 January 2020 (EST)

:::Rather you than me down that rabbit hole. Little help, though: you can delete the [https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Battles_Rifles Battles (!) rifles category]. I [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=M1_Garand&curid=5210&diff=1612016&oldid=1429076 removed] its only entry. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (EST)

::::Rabbit hole? This is more like a mine shaft. It is huge, and it twists, turns, and goes many different directions. Oh, and there's no map. Anyway, thanks for the help. I already deleted it. I don't know why that ever existed... --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:48, 8 January 2020 (EST)

:::::Should these categories be deleted: [[:Category:Semi-Automatic Pistols]], [[:Category:Semi-Automatic Pistol Ammunition]]? Both have only one article in them. If other relevant articles can be found, fine, but if not, it isn't necessary and doesn't deserve its own category. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (EST)
::::::Same thing for [[:Category:Semi-Automatic Firearms]]. Yes, I think they should probably be deleted. There are too many similar, overlapping categories with little reason for existing right now. Good catch! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:00, 8 January 2020 (EST)

== Article review ==

Would you please take a look at this article? [[Origin point]] -- it may need to be moved to an essay, or otherwise improved. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:44, 6 January 2020 (EST)
:I'm okay with having this kind of an article in mainspace, but it should be expanded. Also, the tumbleweed needs to go. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:03, 6 January 2020 (EST)
::Would you also please take a look at this article: [[Escape from Uncle Sam's Plantation by Ed Temple]]? This editor seems to have good intentions, and I lean toward accepting his articles, but they should still be fixed to follow CP guidelines. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:49, 10 January 2020 (EST)
:::We could make an argument against it on the basis of notability, but I'm fine with keeping this one. I see some room for improvement (as do you), but I think this is worth keeping. It lacks cohesion and basic wiki styling, but it seems to be an original, well-intentioned entry about something our readers may find interesting. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:45, 11 January 2020 (EST)
::::Admittedly, there might be some bias from this editor, though... --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (EST)
:::::Would you also please take a look at this article: [[Aditya Chattopadhyay]]? I apologize for always pestering you with these requests. I'm focuses on the "Donald Trump achievements" articles and have little time to deal with new pages like this because of that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:10, 11 January 2020 (EST)
::::::No need to apologize! I find myself on a strange schedule, which sometimes causes me to miss recent activity which I should be reviewing.
::::::I deleted this one--it's about a collage student who does not seem particularly notable. It claimed that he was going to run for president in 2060, and included what seemed to be an affiliate/referral link to a "campaign" t-shirt he is supposedly selling. That one just smelled wrong for multiple reasons. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:40, 11 January 2020 (EST)
:::::::Thank you. Would you please look at this page, which seems to be a hybrid article/userpage: [[User:FreedommovementUSA]]? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:16, 12 January 2020 (EST)
Yeah, I was looking at that one a little bit earlier...I'm not as sure what to say about it. It's an article, which they put in userspace--that's odd. I've never heard of this group before; I suspect that it has been recently founded, but I haven't done significant research. I don't have any immediate concerns about the content, but I don't know if it is notable enough to warrant a page. Do you know anything about them? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (EST)
:This is the first I've heard of them. I found their website here: [https://www.freedommovementusa.com/] They don't seem like a very notable organization, though I would be OK with keeping the article as it's obviously a conservative organization. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:32, 12 January 2020 (EST)
::Same. It looks like this is a self-promotion attempt, which I tend to favor less that organic writing. However, I could go either way on this. I suppose we could just leave it where it is--allow the info to be here, but barely. It might show up in web searches, but not from most internal searching. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:51, 12 January 2020 (EST)
:::Sounds good to me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (EST)

::::Ok, let's do that, at least for now. It will be interesting to see if this editor intends to do anything more than this. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:01, 12 January 2020 (EST)

== New article requests ==

Hello DavidB4, looking through your TAR removals, I noticed that several red links to what should be obvious articles do not have an article. For example, [[Water cycle]] and [[Nitrogen cycle]], as well as [[Cascade Range]] which I just created. If you're willing, as you do maintenance on the various articles, would you please look for red links to what a reasonable person would consider an obvious/prominent article for an encyclopedia? I'm not asking you to create them, but just to document them so that every obvious encyclopedia search has an article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:57, 6 January 2020 (EST)
:Good idea, sure I'll at least make note of them, and try to work from there. I probably can't make too many pages on such topics, but its worth paying attention to. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:12, 6 January 2020 (EST)

== Image upload requests... ==

Hi DavidB4, can you see if you can upload any of the images I requested into files? ([[Conservapedia:Image upload requests#Please_convert_the_following_images_into_files|this section]]) I'm really hoping that all the permissions are met so that they can be uploaded, as many of the images are meant for contributing to the [[Conservapedia]] pages on nominees for the upcoming 2020 elections. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 3:59, 27 January 2020

:It looks like none of these images are being made freely available for reuse. I can try to check each one individually (a time consuming process) to see if any of them seem to allow reuse with restrictions. That will take some time though, and I'm currently busy doing that on a set of requests made prior to yours. Since some of these people are politicians, I suspect that you could find freely available images of them on places like Flickr and Wikimedia commons. If such images exist and are suitable, we really should try to use those. If you did, I could upload those quickly. Otherwise, (if no suitable copies are freely available) I can slowly work my way through this list. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:45, 27 January 2020 (EST)

::If you're busy working on other matters, then don't bother individually checking to see if the images I requested allow permission for you to download into files. I'll just find other images that are under a Creative Common license. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 7:27, 27 January 2020

:I left notes on a few which I spot-checked, so please take a look at those when you get the chance. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:50, 27 January 2020 (EST)

::I saw the notes, and updated some of the requests. Regarding the requests I haven't updated yet, I'll get to those soon. Thank you, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 8:54, 27 January 2020

:::Okay, thank you! That would be great if you could get some CC ones. If you just can't get a particular photo any other way, then I can look at what you do have, and see if I think we can use it under Fair Use. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (EST)

== Cropping down some images... ==

For these three images ([[:File:Kyrsten Sinema.jpg]], [[:File:Gary Peters.jpg]], and [[:File:Senator Gretchen Whitmer.jpg]]) that you uploaded, can you see if you can crop them down so that only the head and part of the shoulders are part of the image and that the resulting dimensions are that of a portrait, similar to how most [[Conservapedia]] images for politicians are? For the first and last one, if you crop them, the hand gesture can be cropped out. Thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 14:47, 26 February 2020 (EST)

:[[:File:Kyrsten Sinema 2018.jpg]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
::Thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (EDT)

:::You're welcome! If you wanted to crop any of these yourself, you could email them to me or upload them to cloud storage somewhere for me to get. That might make this a little faster, and it would ensure they are being cropped correctly. Otherwise, I'll do them when I get the chance.
:::[[:File:Gary Peters 2008.jpg]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:04, 8 March 2020 (EDT)
::::Thank you again, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 21:00, 8 March 2020 (EDT)

:::::You're welcome, and here's the last one: [[:File:Senator Gretchen Whitmer 2011.jpg]].
:::::I just noticed that you did initially ask for it to be cropped, but I guess I missed that. My mistake! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:37, 9 March 2020 (EDT)
::::::Yes! Thank you DavidB4 for finishing up the requested cropping! Also, because it was about two weeks ago, I do believe that you said that you will crop down [[:File:Pramila Jayapal.jpg]], as you mentioned [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#February_7.2C_2020_image_requests_by_Liberaltears|here]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 16:56, 9 March 2020 (EDT)

== Question about previous image upload request for Charles A. Halleck ==

Hi DavidB4, I noticed that for the earlier image upload requests I added, you skipped the one for [[Charles A. Halleck]] ([https://bioguideretro.congress.gov/Home/MemberDetails?memIndex=H000081 this one]) because the "Rights and Reproductions" page stated that a reuse required expressed permission via email. However, I noticed that a similar image for [[Sam Rayburn]] from the same website (history.house.gov) ([https://history.house.gov/Collection/Detail/29447?ret=True this one]) was reused as a file on Wikipedia ([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samuel_Taliaferro_Rayburn.jpg here]) with the licensing saying "public domain" because it is a work of the federal government. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the image request I added for Charles Halleck can be uploaded as well because it is also part of a collection of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] just like the one for Sam Rayburn? Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 18:17, 6 March 2020 (EST)

:That's a good question--had I seen wikipedia's page first, I probably would had assumed it was fine. However, if you look at the source page, it says that "''Sam Rayburn had his portrait painted by British artist Douglas Chandor shortly after his election as Speaker.''" This means that the paining was ordered by Rayburn himself, not the federal government, and painted by an independent painter, not a federal employee. Unless I am missing something, this does not sound like Public Domain to me. Furthermore, the source says that in order to reuse the image, you must contact them to request permission. [https://history.house.gov/About/Rights-and-Reproduction/]
:Images default into public domain some time after the author's death (90 years, I think) but we have not reached that yet. I would like to say we can use it, but I don't see any legal basis to do so, unless we fill out the form asking for permission (which you are welcome to do). --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:45, 7 March 2020 (EST)
::Thank you for the clarification, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]] ([[User talk:Liberaltears|talk]]) 18:22, 7 March 2020 (EST)

== Two questions ==

Thank you for the notice. I had a look at some of the pages in your post and the [[Help:List of Templates]] page has already shown me that in future, I could use a template when I am adding a quote to an article. I have two questions. 
1. I read [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] and on the second point on that page: I recently edited the Wikipedia article for Witching Hour and I copied the information I added there for the witching hour sub-section on [[Witch]] on this website. Are the Wikipedia administration likely to have an issue with this?
2. I wouldn't mind knowing good Christian websites to use as references for adding information to articles on Conservapedia. I know of a few such as [[The Christian Post]], Gospel Herald, Christian Today, [[Christianity Today]] and the [[Creation Ministries International]] website. But if there is any more good websites, that would the selection of websites I source from. I'm personally trying, (if I can help it) to use Christian websites in particular because those websites seem likely to be the ones that Wikipedia will have a [[liberal bias]] against. Thanks. --[[User:StFrancisThames|StFrancisThames]] ([[User talk:StFrancisThames|talk]]) 20:51, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

:And thanks for joining us!
:# In this case, you own the right to that text, so it is okay to copy it over. We prefer not to just publish duplicate content which is also on WP, but doing this occasionally, and especially in small amounts is fine. Just make sure you don't copy any edits or additions from other WP users, and it should be fine.
:# Good question...There are many, but it depends what kind of content you are looking for. For example, answersingenesis.org and icr.org offer some great information in regard to science and history. I would be cautions of Christianity Today though, as it seems they sometimes are promoting things which don't exactly align with scripture. If you are looking for information on current events, wnd.com and breitbart.com can be good resources. These are not purely christian sites, but they are generally favorable towards Christianity and christian values. We also have a page with a bunch more links, although its organizational style might need a little work: [[Conservative_links#Conservative_Organizations]]. Do any of these help? Is there any topic in particular you need resources on? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (EDT)

::Hello again. Thank you for your help and sorry for taking my time to reply to you. After editing for a while, my current concern is perhaps not so much my ability to find sources but my ability to translate my research onto pages in quality typed English. I don't like to copy word-for-word what a source says because of copyright and any other applicable reasons but I wonder if my use of thesaurus websites is creating weird sentences. For example, I found [https://www.christianpost.com/news/millennials-most-likely-to-fact-check-sermons-barna-study-finds.html this source] to use for the [[Millennial]] page but before I clicked the "Save Page" button, I wondered if saying that Millenials were "surelier to verify claims of taught moral messages" was strange wording. As I type this, it doesn't seem so bad, but I think there might be a worse example in my editing history. I remember in English class when I was in high school, I wrote "units of motor vehicles" for creative writing and the teacher thought my language was "scientific". Do you have any thoughts about this? Thanks.--[[User:StFrancisThames|StFrancisThames]] ([[User talk:StFrancisThames|talk]]) 18:36, 19 March 2020 (EDT)

:::Hi again, that's no problem at all! That wording does sound a little odd to me, and without context, I'm not quite sure what it is trying to say. The thing that stands out to me is "surelier." The word "surely" already implies an absolute, so adding "er" to the end doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it is already an absolute, how can it then be somehow more absolute? However, context can help with such confusion to some extent. Likewise for "units of motor vehicles," without the context, I don't really know exactly what you are trying to say. The word "Units" can be used when counting ("There are 17 units of ___"), when referring to s specific device ("This unit seems to be operating normally.") or in reference to a group ("The soldiers had a long day ahead of them so the unit went to bed early"). If you are not sure about word usage, maybe look at a dictionary, and see what t lists for the first definition. If it isn't the first or second definition, maybe try a different word. If it isn't in the dictionary you are using, also try a different word. I know it's not perfect, and it is a real hassle to do, but it might help.
:::Unfortunately, books and other reference materials cannot always convey cultural norms and common verbiage. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:03, 19 March 2020 (EDT)

== Hello ==

:Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I look forward to us working together to better Conservapedia. Feel free to add to any new articles that I have created. [[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]])

== Green Name ==

Hello, I was recently on this page (https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal) when I came across an entry written by you, however, your name was green compared to the red/blue of everyone else, it may just be me being curious, but why is that? --[[User:Elnencatala|Elnencatala]] ([[User talk:Elnencatala|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

:I think you're referring to the signature. Assuming you're logged in, if you look on the top of the page, right in between the “Talk” page and “Watchlist”, there should be a “Preferences” page internally linked. In it, there is a section regarding your signature. You can edit your signature (best to use the “Treat signature as wikitext” option), so that whenever you click on the signature button, your custom signature shows up when published. Hope this helps, in case DavidB4 isn't around at the moment. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:54, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

::Thanks Liberaltears, yes that is correct. Under "Preferences," you can enter and alternative signature with options such as "font color." That's how I did it. There is no major reason I did this--it just makes it a little easier for me to find my signatures in large talk pages. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:33, 30 March 2020 (EDT)

== Hiding a revision from view... ==

Hi DavidB4, since you have an oversight tag, can you permanently hide one of the recent revisions on [[Wikipedia|this page]] made by a recent vandal? I know the username was hidden from view, but the revision (which can be accessed) isn't hidden and it contains an external link to an inappropriate site. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:24, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:In addition, can you also permanently and fully hide my revert of the vandalizing as well? I think it would be better to eliminate all possible publicity of the vandal. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:28, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::I think the vandal just made a sockpuppet. Since you have the check user tag, can you block the IP address of the vandal? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:32, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::I tired to oversight it, but got an error. I'm investigating. I'm also looking into the checkuser data. I probably should do another bot run to block a lot of these IPs. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:35, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::Alright, thank you for trying the best you can, DavidB4! And good thing you saw my message here due to the seriousness of the vandalism! I really hope that no one ''(especially not a minor)'' had accessed the revision... And please report the IP address of the vandal to the authorities; whoever was behind it ought to get a harsh punishment! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 16:41, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::You're welcome, and thanks for your help as well!
:::::They were attempting to anonymize themselves by hiding their IP address, but it looks like their real IP might have leaked through. I'm investigating further. It's rather humorous when that happens...people tend to use these tools without really understanding how they work, or their limitations. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::::Alright, thank you for blocking the IP address! Just wondering though, do you think you'll be able to fully hide the revisions from view on [[Wikipedia|this page]] and [[China|this page]]? I know you mentioned an hour ago that there was an error in trying to oversight it. I hope I don't sound too impatient, it's just regarding the seriousness of the vandalism that's still accessible via the revisions. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 17:37, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::::The tool to hide revisions is not working for me. I've contacted Andy about the probem, but for now, someone else might need to hide them. You could try asking someone like Andy or Karajou. Sorry I can't do more right now! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:41, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Alright, I just mentioned it on Andy's talk page [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Hiding_a_revision_from_view...|here]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 17:55, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::Question: How did the vandal get an account with the User name it had? Also, I suspect the clickbait link left behind would download some nasty malware. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 18:38, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::They didn't use your username...they used "RobSmiith" (note the two I's). Also, you are probably correct about malware. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:54, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::::::I noticed that the revisions still aren't fully hidden from view. Does the oversight function work right now, DavidB4? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 21:23, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

---

:Andy's looking into it? Alright, well that's great to hear, as he didn't reply [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Hiding_a_revision_from_view...|here on his talk page]]. While I doubt that most people going on this site would file through the edit history, I'd say that it's better to hide it to ''ensure'' that nothing (accessible) on [[Conservapedia]] is linking to such inappropriate/obscene websites. Thank you DavidB4, I really appreciate your patience with this request! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 21:45, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::You're welcome! It could be that he didn't reply because he didn't want that info being posted publicly. Some things are better discussed over email. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

:::Oh yeah, I see your point. <satire because I currently need some humor to chill out after the serious vandalism>But then again, regarding emails, that isn't 100% safe, as Russians might hack the server, making Bleach Bit a necessary measure for mass-deleting emails while simultaneously smashing cell phones with a hammar concurrent with Comey's orders in summoning the FBI to raid on your basement, and then you're in a rush ordering out-of-state [[Arkancide]]s on witnesses to cover up Whitewater, the Haitian relief fund scam, Vince Foster, Seth Rich, Benghazi, etceter- oh wait, I just accidentally and irrevelantly summarized Hillary's crimes.</satire because I currently need humor to chill out after the serious vandalism> --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:08, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

::::Haha! Okay, that's a good point. I guess talk pages are a safer option. I'd rather not start down this path! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:57, 3 April 2020 (EDT)

== Question about image uploads... ==

Hi DavidB4, I have a question about image uploads regarding the types of images that can be uploaded. If an image is on, say, a political candidate's personal website and there's no specification that it can't be used, can it be uploaded into a file here on [[CP]]? And what about images on a political candidate's personal [[Facebook]] page? Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 11:13, 11 April 2020 (EDT)

:For images from a political candidate's website, we can probably use them under the Fair Use clause, but that tends to be a grey area. This is pretty much the same for their Facebook pages, although from Facebook, it can be more difficult to provide proper attribution. Unfortunately, it seems like "Fair Use" claims fall in a grey area, and there have been lawsuits for claiming "Fair Use" when the author disagrees. We can probably use images from both of these, but it would be preferable to get alternative images with clearly open licensing when possible. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:25, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

::Okay, thank you for the clarification, DavidB4! Also, just curious, did you see what I added in the CP Community Portal [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Fixing_a_mistake_using_the_Infobox_officeholder_template...|here]]? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:30, 12 April 2020 (EDT)

:::You're welcome, and thanks for checking! In regard to the template issue, I did see that discussion, but have not gotten the time to trouble-shoot the issue. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:03, 13 April 2020 (EDT)

::::Alright, thank you DavidB4! Once again, I appreciate all the help you offer! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 14:12, 13 April 2020 (EDT)

== Some questions... ==

Hello DavidB4, I have some questions. First, about [[User_talk:DavidB4#Hiding_a_revision_from_view...|this previous topic]], does the oversight function work now? And even if it still may not work, is it possible to simply delete the log details for the revisions like [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] and [[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] have done before? Second, it's been over a month since the preview option for editing works the way it has always been prior to when it became as dysfunctional as the 112th United States Congress. Is there a specific problem regarding that that needs to be resolved, and will it be fixed anytime soon? Third, did you see [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#McSally_Derangement_Syndrome|this small section]] I added in [[CP:COMPORT]]? I'm mostly hoping for a reply from a sysop or assistant sysop just to get an idea on whether the topic is a great idea or not. Fourth, about [[CP]] settings, I noticed that in the "Preferences", a set preferred gender would be public information, although I can't figure out how the details can be accessed by anyone going on this site, and I'm kind of curious about where the information is. Fifth, about [[Special:SpecialPages|special pages]], is there a source code for them likewise for normal pages? In addition, I noticed that for all [[CP]] pages whose URL that follows as "conservapedia.com/index.php?title=(etc.)" can't normally be internally linked, although they can be internally linked on special pages. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:09, 4 May 2020 (EDT)

:Good questions.
#It does not seem to be fixed. I cannot delete log details, either...I get an error when I try. Something appears to be a little broken. You could try asking one of them to try doing it, and see if it works for them.
#I also am having difficulty with preview. This may be be a side effect of the poor server responsiveness we've been having lately. Andy is trying to resolve that problem. I'm hoping once that is fixed, preview will resume working reliably as well. I can't say for sure, though...I don't have access to the hosting server.
#I had not seen it. I posted a short reply.
#I don't think this info is deliberately published anywhere. However, you can reference that info with something like <code><nowiki>{{GENDER:DavidB4|male|female|unknown}}</nowiki></code> you will see: {{GENDER:DavidB4|male|female|unknown}}
#I don't think there is page code available for these special pages. They are generated dynamically by the server. Of course, there is still HTML and CSS code, and some scripts, as with any page on the web (in most browsers, press F12 to see that). I know that's not what you are looking for, though.
#I've noticed that issue too, so I just make those external links. I don't know why it happens, but I don't have the ability to do troubleshooting on the server, so I just work around the problem.
:Unfortunately there are some minor issues which we might just need to live with for the time being. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:48, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you very much, DavidB4! And speaking of #4, I noticed that there is no official template associated with the function, neither is there one for DEFAULTSORT. Is there a reason for such? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 01:18, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Yes, those functions are packaged in the wiki's base software. For these, no template pages are required since the software already knows what to do with them. These are called "magic words", and there are actually quite a number of them. A current list is available [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words here], although we are using an older version of the software, so a few of the newest "magic words" may not be supported here. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:47, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Seems very interesting. Thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 14:02, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::You're welcome! Sorry I couldn't help more with some of those points. For reference, we are using Wikimedia version 1.24, so on that list of magic words, any item listed for versions newer than this will probably not be supported. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:31, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

== Freddy Kita page, etc. ==

Hi DavidB4, did you see the [[Freddy Kita|this page]] and the notice I put on it? I also notified the user on their talk page [[User talk:Medinfo|here]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 22:58, 12 May 2020 (EDT)

:Also, another problem. [[Special:Contributions/NoMoreFakeNews|This user]] is edit warring on [[Michael Steele|this page]], adding in information that is quite unnoteworthy (Steele may currently be an [[anti-Trump]] commentator, although that is much less important than his previous [[conservative]] leadership; thus, the former [[RNC]] chairman can somewhat be compared to [[Barry Goldwater]]). The user first added info that was uncited, and after I reverted it, he then reverted that (edit warring), and in the description then only provided a source URL while falsely accusing me of being a [[liberal]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 01:33, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

::I noticed the Freddy Kita issue, and figured I would give this editor a few days to reply. This should be dealt with, though, so I did just add a note and a deletion template. In regard to Michael Steele, I think this issue might be worth noting somewhere in the article, perhaps under the "Opposition to Donald Trump" section. While it is only a small exchange of words, it does demonstrate his opposition to Trump and Trump's supporters, and his "establishment" mindset. McConnell did make a good point...historically, past presidents have not criticized their successors in public, out of respect for the office and their colleagues. That is, until Trump came along. Now for some reason it is perfectly acceptable for them to go around speaking ill of a successor. Obama is once again breaking that unwritten rule with a vengeance. When McConnell called him out for it, Steele attacked him. This means that Steele is so hateful towards Trump that he supports a past president attacking a sitting president, in contrary with standard professional behavoir. Considering the fact that even McConnell isn't always as conservative as we would like (although he has been a good supporter of Trump), this is an interesting exchange.
::NoMoreFakeNews should have included this reference initially though, and edit warring with you about it is not okay. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:49, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Ah, I see what you mean. I initially asserted that the information wasn't noteworthy largely because Steele's current influence as a [[Never Trumper]] doesn't mean very much compared to him previously being a [[conservative]] leader of the [[Republican party]]. I also noticed in the [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Steele&action=history page history here] that despite Steele having been [[anti-Trump]] for about four years now, no other CP editors really bothered to mention much about it, not even [[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]]. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 12:19, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Yes, in the grand political landscape, it is rather insignificant. I just think it might be worth noting that fact about Steele himself, as a reference of character (or lack thereof). The fact no one has bothered with him lately does in itself say something... --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:40, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::Alright, I added the detail. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 13:04, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::Looks good, thank you! I left a note for the other user, too. [[User talk:NoMoreFakeNews]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:18, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::::You're welcome DavidB4! Also, I don't know if you saw it, but there was a wave of vandalism earlier today that I had to deal with, and while [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] did block two one vandal and remove the username of another, [[Special:Contributions/Adam72|this presumed sockpuppet]] has yet to be blocked, and I created [[Template:Protection request|this template]] as well as [[:Category:Protection requests|this category]] out of the fact that at least two pages were being vandalized and edit warred over by idiotic trolls. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 19:56, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Yes, I noticed some of it. I wasn't sure if Adam72 was actually trying to do something productive, or just vandalizing. It certainly wasn't a helpful edit. As for the protection template and category, I would caution not to go too far in that direction. Perhaps a few pages more should be protected, but not many. Protection can prevent vandals from attacking one specific page, but most of the time, they will just vandalize something else if they can't do that page. It doesn't stop the problem, just relocates it. Meanwhile, legitimate editors can't edit those pages either. Page protection has been a significant problem for me, since many pages have been put under infinite protection either because they were vandalized once or twice, or they just seemed like things someone didn't think would need to edited again soon. The only thing harder to get than page protection, is getting a page unprotected. I have lists of pages and files which I want to edit, but cannot, because they are locked to the full administrator level. I'm not saying that page protection doesn't have its place, just that it should be used very sparingly. I also then to think that when a page is protected in response to vandalism, it should have an expiration date. Maybe 6 months, maybe even 2 or more years, but I think the default in most cases should be that they ultimately become unlocked again. We can't protect every page that might be vandalized and still expect our content to stay up to date. 
Pardon the rant...I think this can be used beneficially, but it should be done sparingly. This is in large part why I made Minuteman. It can deal with vandalism wherever it occurs, by blocking the offending user and reverting the unwanted edits. However, at Andy's request, it has been offline recently to slightly reduce server load while we sort out that problem. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:53, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

:Almost four years ago, we discussed this problem. Andy, several admins, several SysOps (including myself) and several other editors all agreed that we had a problem with too many pages being locked. Andy suggested that I create a category, which we could use to tag pages which had no real need to be locked, so they could be easily identified and unlocked. I did ([[:Category:Pages Proposed For Unlocking]]), and for the first few days, it worked...some pages were unlocked so they could be updated. But then, it died out and no one was unlocking pages any more. Eventually, people stopped tagging them, since it wasn't doing any good. Maybe I will try reminding people of that, but it probably won't go anywhere. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:04, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::Ah I see. And about [[Special:Contributions/Adam72|Adam72]], I'm pretty sure the user is a sockpuppet of [[Special:Contributions/AdamEve|AdamEve]], as the edits made on the same page were very similar, and the latter account vandalized other pages as well. Can you check the IP addresses of the users just to make sure? Thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 21:33, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Oh yes, good point about Adam72. They used a different IP to evade the block, but obviously it is the same person. I should have looked more closely. I blocked them. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:40, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Alright, thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 21:43, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::You're welcome, and thanks for pointing it out! By the way, it looks like I made a special request for a few of those pages to be unlocked, which Andy did. Then Karajou unlocked some as well. Perhaps I spoke too soon...I was pleasantly surprised to find that several have been taken care of. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

== Can't figure out how to fix [[Template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data]]... ==

Hi DavidB4, can you help me fix [[Template:Infobox officeholder/Personal data]], specifically with the "Military Service" section? The only possible way that I could get an idea of how to improve it was to examine the source code of [[Template:Officeholder|this template]], and the only way to check whether the modified version works or not was to open a new tab, open up [[CP]], and enter in a page where the template is being transcluded into ''in addition to'' the "Military Section" section (I checked via the [[Don Bolduc]] page). A while ago, I asked [[User:TerryH|TerryH]] on his talk page [[User_talk:TerryH#Template_usage_help...|here]], but he never responded. Only very recently did I just figure out the exact problem only with what was wrong, and I asked Andy ([[User_talk:Aschlafly#Improvising_a_protected_template|here]]) to do a very specific edit on the then-protected template, but Andy just unprotected it for me to to edit, and I got somewhat frustrated yesterday trying to get everything to work well. The colored cell surrounding the text would initially work, but wouldn't extend all the way across to the right. I then fixed that, but couldn't remove the extraneous pipe character in front of "Military service". Right now, I just want to the increase the font size for "Military Service" without also effective the font size for the details below and remove the unnecessary pipe. Do you think you can help me with that? The revision history [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_officeholder/Personal_data&action=history here] might help give an idea as to what I was intending to do but made mistakes on. Once again, I really appreciate all the help you can offer, and thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 12:24, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:Hmm... That ''is'' a problem. I'm really not very good at editing templates. I wonder if the problem might have something to do with the <code><nowiki>{{!-}}</nowiki></code> on line 177. I think it is supposed to be <code><nowiki>{{!}}-</nowiki></code>, but making that change did not resolve this issue. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::Ah, I see. Well, thank you for trying to improvise it. I'll probably further examine the template source codes later. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 14:21, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::I will try to spend more time on it later as well. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Great news! Taking a cue from [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Officeholder&action=edit this template's source code], it turned out that the extraneous pipe resulted from <code><nowiki>{{!}}</nowiki></code>, so I removed it and added <code><nowiki> </nowiki></code>. So now I'm just hoping to increase the text size only for “Military Service”, and potentially lighten the cell color if need be to match with the officeholder cell color for the overall template. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 22:57, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::Nice job! I've slightly increased the text size, also. I don't know how big you are thinking, though. Also, I'm not sure what color it is you are trying to match with. I don't see a color on the base template, so I didn't make any changes to that yet. It should be fairly easy to do. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:54, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::Thanks! And about the color matching, I was referring to the cell color surrounding the text of office titles. While there aren't any such cells for the [[Donald Bolduc]] page, there are for pages like [[John Neely Kennedy|this one]], and I'll most likely try lightening the color for the cell surrounding the "Military Service" text. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 15:00, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::Unfortunately, there is another problem arising. Where the "Military Service" used to only show up for infobox officeholder templates only if certain details are specified, now it always shows up for every page with the template. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 15:02, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::::Yes, I noticed that issue. It looks like a conditional show statement broke. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:06, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Good thing I just fixed it. The problem arose out of the fact that <code><nowiki>!colspan="2" style="background:#E5CDFF;font-size=115%"{{!}}<big>Military Service</big></nowiki></code> was outside the <code><nowiki>{{#ifeq:}}</nowiki></code>, so I simply put it in there. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 15:09, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::Ah yes, there it is! Nice catch. I just matched the background color, also. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:13, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Nice! Just to note, and I should have specified, I was thinking of making the background color more of a tint of purple to match the lightness of the #E6E6FA, though I can adjust it easily. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 15:16, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::Oh, Ok. Feel free to adjust it as you want. I'll try to avoid stepping on your toes. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:47, 18 May 2020 (EDT)

== DavidB4-bot replacing ’ with ' ==

Hi DavidB4, I'm just curious, why is your bot replacing ’ with ' when it comes to apostrophes? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 21:44, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:It's a minor thing, but the ’ is an [[ASCII]] character, while the ' is [[unicode]]. When it comes to fonts, the ASCII apostrophe is sometimes displayed oddly by some software, while the unicode one typically looks as it should. For example, Apple and Microsoft differ in how this is displayed, but they agree on how the unicode one is shown. Therefore, the unicode one is generally favored. Some search engine spiders allegedly prefer unicode, thus ranking pages which use the unicode ones higher (of course, search engines try not to tell all their secrets though, so it's hard to be sure) than pages using the ASCII version. I know they look very similar, but if you look at [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Maggie_Hassan&action=history edits when this change is made], you will see that a few [[Byte|bytes]] have been removed from the page. This is because unicode uses a smaller reference number for it than ASCII does. Here is an article which touches on the topic, in case you want a better explanation.: [https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/quotes.html]
:I don't mind if the "wrong" (ASCII) one is used, but since the bot is semi-automated anyway, I figure it might as well change them when it notices them. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:07, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

::Ah, interesting. I tend to prefer using ‘’ and “” over <nowiki>''</nowiki> and "" respectively largely because the former apostrophe/quotation marks specify which to use for beginning and which for closing. Also, speaking of byte count, why does – and — take up three bytes each? And how come wikifying a link (adding two brackets on each side = +4) sometimes only nets +3 bytes in an edit, as seen [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=1626725&oldid=1626724 here] ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&action=history page history])? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 23:23, 19 May 2020 (EDT)

:::Yes, it seems to me that those should be the standard ones to use, but they are not. Unless everyone agrees to make the ASCII characters uniform between platforms, or adds more unicode characters, it looks like we are stuck with this issue.
:::Dashes and hyphens are each a single (Unicode, I think) digit code. Therefore, although the binary bits are different, there are the same number of them since the same character size is allocated either way.
:::As for the four brackets only adding 3 bytes...I don't know, that is odd. I'd never noticed that before, but now you've got me wondering. Typically one character takes up one byte, so I would generally expect a byte count like that to be due to another character (such as a space) being removed. Since that doesn't seem to be happening here, I don't think I have an explanation. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:58, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

::::I see. Thank you DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 01:19, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

== Restricting editing to "autoconfirmed" doesn't deter vandalism ==

Hi again DavidB4, I just thought it's important to note that protecting pages to the "autoconfirmed" level doesn't seem to prevent vandalism at all. After, all, [[Wikipedia|this page]] was still blanked by a troll who had created their account just the minute previous. Is there any way to raise the bar in order for users to be "autoconfirmed"? Or is there a protection level that would allow editing only if users have any additional tags such as SkipCaptcha? That way, all genuine editors who are granted a "SkipCaptcha" can edit such pages. Thanks! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:02, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:By the way, do you think there's any chance that Andy might grant me additional tags anytime soon? Sometimes I'm able to revert vandalism caused by idiotic trolls before any other editor gets to it, so a "Block" tag could be useful there. Also, [[Special:Contributions/Jackmann|this troll]] that I just mentioned hasn't been blocked yet. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:20, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

::I just blocked them--thanks for the quick response there. I agree, the autoconfirm system isn't very effective right now. I don't know for this version specifically, but I did [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Locking_my_user_page|post on Andy's page]] a little while ago about how you would typically change autoconfirm protection settings. However, that is something only someone with filesystem access can do. As for blocking privileges, I would not be surprised if you got them fairly soon. However, such privileges cannot usually be requested. All I can say is keep at it, and you will probably get them eventually. There is no published criteria for promotion, so that's about the best I can say. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:41, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:::I'm working on adding something to Minutman which should help with the server load concern. I'm hoping to bring it back online soon. That should help some. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:42, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

::::Ah, I see. Thank you once again, DavidB4! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:49, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:::::Any time! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:17, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

== Anti-vandalism suggestion ==

Hi DavidB4, I have a suggestion that could potentially be effective in stopping vandalism. You mentioned [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Request_to_change_title_of_article|here]] that one of your bots is set to inform you via email whenever the move or delete template is used on [[CP]]. Is it possible to set that bot to alert you such that an edit is made by any user who, when published that edit, had less than 100 previous edits? That way, new accounts created merely to vandalize this site can quickly be spotted. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 01:49, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

:Hi, so you are thinking that anytime a user with less that 100 contributions makes an edit, I get an email? If I understood you correctly, that seems like it would get very noisy. If I was was able to check on every one of those, it could help. However, that seems like something which would just become too time consuming. In any case, I'm currently having difficulty pulling a user's edit count using a bot, so I can't base anything on this statistic, right now. I am hoping to find a way to do it at some point, but haven't had the time to troubleshoot the issue. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

::Oh, I see the problem with the email load. So here's a (great) satirical joke idea: you can make an extra super-intelligent bot, connect it to your email in addition to the same bleach-bitting thing [[Hillary Clinton]]'s email server uses; that way, it can automatically analyze the emails your bot sends to you and mass-delete if need be on its superintelligence and ability to analyze whether the edits should be further examined or not. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 17:54, 7 June 2020 (EDT)

:::Well that got complicated quickly...haha! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:22, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

== I put this message on ProgressingAmerica's talk page ==

I put the below message on [[User talk:Progressingamerica]]:

I am glad you liked my idea for a Conservapedia chat area.

I suggest getting together with [[User:DavidB4]] who is technically knowlegeable/adept.

Maybe he would be willing to help you set up a Conservapedia [https://discord.com/ Discord] channel.

Once it is set up, I can advertise it in appropriate areas at Conservapedia (front page, relevant articles on Conservapedia at Conservapedia.

DavidB4 set up a IRC chat channel, but I don't think IRC is as good as Discord (but I could be wrong about this matter).

I would learn Discord myself, but I am pressed for time at this time due to off wiki affairs.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:24, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

:Yes, if we want such a thing, I can help. I'm just unsure as to whether it will actually be used. We could try it, but as you mentioned, the IRC channel never really got used. One other catch--[https://archive.is/hGtDw Discord is liberal], like most tech companies. They may kick us out if they don't like what we have to say. We could try something from the "ant-media" like Gab Chat, but I think that only supports chromium browsers at the moment, which could be inconvenient to some people. I don't know if there are other good options. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:27, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
::Maybe it will be used. I don't know. I am going to be busy off wiki so I will not use it. I am just being frank about this. I don't want to give the impression that will use it. I might have used it earlier, but I am busy off wiki at this period in my life.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:49, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
:::Andy Schafly, might want [https://telegram.org/ Telegram] to be used instead for a chat channel because it sounds more mainstream than Discord. But I really don't know much about Discord and Telegram as far as their pros and cons.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:14, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
::::I've heard good things about Telegram, but never used it. They [https://gizmodo.com/why-you-should-stop-using-telegram-right-now-1782557415 don't use E2E encryption by default] but many platforms don't, including Discord. Since we are looking for a space to carry on public discussion, I don't think that will be a concern. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:48, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

== Questions about Conservapedia functions, etc. ==

Hi DavidB4, I have some questions about the [[Conservapedia]] system regarding some functions whose associated rights I don't yet have. I was reading this [[Special:ListGroupRights|special page on user rights]] and it said that anyone with the "protect" tag can edit cascade-protected pages. So if understand correctly, does it mean, for example, if Template:A transcluded into Template:B and the latter was fully protected with the "cascading" option set on, then anyone with the "protect" tag can edit Template:A so long as it isn't fully protected itself? Also, about the oversight ability to hide usernames, is the action reversable? [[Conservapedia:Oversight|This page]] says that revisions hidden through oversighting can be restored by a developer, but does this apply to usernames, and what counts as a developer? I had asked Karajou [[User_talk:Karajou#Hiding_revisions_on_two_CP_pages|here]] a month ago regarding trying to hide the vandalized revisions left by the two troll accounts who posted the links to obscene websites, but he said that he couldn't restore the usernames in any way. In addition, about "rollback", is there anything special about getting the tag? From what I know in terms of having reverted messes left by vandals, all one really needs to do is click on the most recent non-vandalized revision, click "Edit", and save the page. Thank you DavidB4!

Also, taking a cue from the way you changed the font color for your signature, I was finally able to figure out the correct formatting to change the font color on [[United States Senate election in Maine, 2020|this page]], and I do appreciate all the help you offered [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Changing_font_colors...|here]]! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 23:29, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:Hi Liberaltears,
:In regard to protect, that is essentially correct. Any content which is given cascading protection and then included on another page, will carry that protection with it. So if Template:A is given cascading protection, then it is included on Template:B, PageA, and PageB, all three would inherit the same protection as Template:A. This can be problematic in many cases, so it is rarely used. The "Protect" privilege enables the option to add protection to a page, but only to a level which that user can still edit it. So I have the "protect" tag, but I do not have the "Administrator" tag. I can protect pages to the next level down (Autoconfirmed) and I can edit such protection as well. However, I cannot protect a page to the Administrator level, since I do not have that tag. I also cannot edit any page protected to that level, or change that protection.
:Oversight has never really worked for me. However, my understanding is that those with the "Oversight" tag can hide usernames and edits, but not restore them. I believe there is a way to restore this later, but I don't know who can do that. Perhaps only Andy is able. You might be able to learn more about it here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight]
:[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Rollback Rollback] makes it a one-click operation to revert a series of unwanted edits to a page. It adds a link to the Recent Changes page, which can be clicked to revert all edits by that user to that page. You can do the same thing without it using the steps you described, this just makes it a little easier to do.

:I'm glad to hear you were able to get that font fixed, too! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you for the explanation, DavidB4! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 23:56, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

::By the way, I had also noticed that "Siteadmin", "check user", and "oversight" abilities aren't included in "Administrator" privileges. Is there a specific reason for that? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 23:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:::You're welcome! I don't really know, but my guess would be that these abilities were added on top of the base wiki capabilities. I'm pretty sure that "check user" is provided by a Wiki plugin, and I think "Siteadmin" is a custom tag. I thought oversight came with the base wiki software, but perhaps it is an addon as well. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (EDT)

::::Ah, I see. And thank you once again! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:10, 18 June 2020 (EDT)

==Tag-team editing==
Hi, David. Thanks for [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dropbox&curid=160189&diff=1664410&oldid=1664284 this edit] to [[Dropbox]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:32, 2 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi Ed, happy to help--thanks for creating it! I was a little surprised that we didn't have articles on things like Dropbox and Google Drive. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:48, 3 July 2020 (EDT)

==Christianity by Continent Category==

Hi David. I created some brief articles on Christianity by Continent such as: https://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_in_Africa I want to add a Category called "Christianity by Continent" uniting this with Christianity in (1) Asia (2) Europe, (3) North America (4) South America and (5) Australia

Can you please do that, or can I do it myself. I added the see also links and other things in the page itself. I wasn't sure about the category thing.

Take care and God Bless,
Nishant Xavier. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:28, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

P.S. I also want to create a Christianity by category sub-category which I hope will include all countries of all continents. Andy also asked me to work on a project which I hope to begin tomorrow; and I need to at least have the basic template of this up before we can successfully begin Project 150 MN [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:30, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi Nishant, I'd be happy to help! One thing I'm not quite certain about first, though. Do you think these articles should be considered (almost entirely) christian history, or will there be a fair amount of modern info as well? I see on the Africa one, there is a sizable piece on modern Christianity, but some others seem to focus on the past. I just want to make sue before I go ahead with adding them. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi David! I plan for them to be a complete compendium of everything that pertains to Christianity on that Continent. The Africa model is more like what the others will look like when they are finished. Beginning with the history to be sure, but a lot of focus on the current Christian Demographics on that Continent. So the articles will be progressively improved going forward. Hope that clears it up. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:56, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Yes, that's good to know, and sounds like a good plan! I've added two categories to each, "Christianity by Continent" (which links them to "Christianity") and the continent's category. Does that look good? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:57, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi David. It looks great thanks. I saw that Asia alone had to be added and seeing how you added to the other continents, I added the one for Asia. So it's all done now. Thanks again and hope all is well, David. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:53, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Ah yes, it looks like I missed that one for some reason. Thanks! Just one other comment, category names should generally be capitalized, except for conjunctions. So, I renamed [[:Category:Christianity by country]] as [[:Category:Christianity by Country]]. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:54, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks again David for your help. I think it's all good now. I want to create articles for Christianity in every country (and only about 3 or 4 are done so far, out of 203 - so 200 more to go!) and some other things like the historical list of Popes for whom also there are nearly 200 entries vacant right now. So that will keep me busy for some time. CP should cross 50,000 pages soon. I'll be sure to ask if anything comes up. God Bless you. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:24, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

:It sounds like you have a lot to do! Okay, well thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:25, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

== Question about [[:File:Andrew Romanoff.jpg]] ==

Hi DavidB4, I noticed in [[:File:Andrew Romanoff.jpg|this file]] you uploaded that the page apparently doesn't exist, with a "Create" option appearing on the top right. I'm just curious, how is that possible? Usually when a file is uploaded, the action is listed in the revision history of the page, though there apparently isn't a revision history for the file. I also noticed that on the bottom of the page, it doesn't say how many times the page was accessed. Does this has to do with the fact that the page is empty in terms of bytes? Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:42, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

:Well that's odd. Yes, I suppose it must not count as a page if there is no text. I always add text to uploads though, so I don't know how that happened. Anyway, I added basic source info--I'm glad you pointed that out! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:00, 17 July 2020 (EDT)
::Okay, thank you DavidB4! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 15:18, 17 July 2020 (EDT)

== Question ==

Hi DavidB4, there's something I ought to ask you about; is there any way for you to email [[User:BHathorn|BHathorn]]? The reason I'm asking this is because I have replied to his questions and issues but he doesn't respond back most of the time, and I have no idea if he ever sees what I say or not. After he created [[R. Harmon Drew, Sr.|this page]] that contained invisible characters which were encoded into the URL, BHathorn created [[R._Harmon_Drew,_Sr.|this duplicate page]] asking what happened. This type of problem was already discussed on [[CP:IUR]] after he had added a move request there, but I'm not sure if he saw our responses or not. If you can email him, can you please tell him that I answered his question the best I could on that duplicate page? I saw that he has made edits after my response, so I'm not sure if BHathorn may have just forgotten to check back on that. Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 20:25, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

I'm also not sure if BHathorn may have just saw the message and didn't have anything to reply in particular. I do know that he did once reply to a message I put on his talk page [[User_talk:BHathorn#Template:Infobox_officeholder_updated|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 20:28, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi, unfortunately I do not have an email address for BHathorn. I guess you could try posing on his talk page though, since that generates an alert. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:03, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::I've posted messages on BHathorn's talk page, but I'm really unsure if he either ignores them now or reads them but just doesn't respond. I've noticed several times that he tends to post questions and requests for actions he doesn't have permissions for (such as moving pages), but doesn't respond to the thread most of the time. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 19:07, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Yes, I've noticed the same. I've kind of assumed that he does see, but just doesn't reply. I'm not sure though. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:49, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::::By the way, those are interesting userboxes you created. :) --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:57, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Thanks! Are you referring to the two most recent userbox templates I created regarding my irritation over the server errors/bad gateways? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Sunday, 22:58, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::Yes, the ones about the 5xx errors. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:47, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

== Question about certain files ==

Hi DavidB4, I have a question about certain files and their properties when used as thumbnails. So when I was adding an image for the [[United States Senate elections, 2020]] page [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections,_2020&diff=1675122&oldid=1675121 here] for the South Dakota section, I was trying to adjust the size of [[:File:M. Michael Rounds.gif]] to 200px, but noticed that the image size didn't change (see comparison between [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections,_2020&diff=1675121&oldid=1675120#South_Dakota here] and [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections,_2020&diff=1675122&oldid=1675121#South_Dakota here]). Is there a specific reason for this? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 22:52, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

:I think typically, 200px is the default display size. You can check what your account is set to use [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering here]. If your thumbnail size is set to 200 (which is most likely is) then adding the 200px variable will not change anything for you. Maybe try a larger size? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:07, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::Okay, I'll try that. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 19:49, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

== Really strange occurrence ==

Hi DavidB4, there's something really strange that happened that I need to ask you about. For some weird reason, I'm unable to access [[User:Liberaltears/Images_to_request_for_uploading|this user subpage of mine]], with a pop-up saying that "Access to this page is forbidden". I don't get it; what's going on? Is it a server/system error or did someone lock me out of accessing the page? Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 21:48, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hmm... That's not supposed to happen. We are trying to fix the current 500 error issues, so this might be an accidental side affect of the tinkering in the background. I'll see what I can find out. I'm sure it's nothing personal, or intentional. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:57, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

::I still think these 500 error issues (in addition to a "401 administrator" error that also popped up earlier this morning) may be the result of a DOS attack on this site. My thought here is that some determined trolls may be trying to attack the site to deny access to it because, to put it simply, they hate us, they hate and fear the truth and they hate and fear the messages and info we try to deliver with the site and its articles. If this weren't the case, then we wouldn't be on those trolls' radar and they wouldn't be trying to pull these stunts to keep people who want to see this site from seeing it and learning that Wikipedia and the liberal media are not what its supporters and apologists play them (or what they try to pass off as "factual" information and "news") up to be. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 09:29, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

:::What I saw earlier this morning (around three hours ago) was more of a "400 page doesn't exist" type of error; I have no idea what happened, and I was worried out of apprehension for a while that this site may have been permanently taken down or something. What I wanted to mention here yesterday night in response to DavidB4's reply was cut short by a 500 ISE that lasted for about half an hour to forty minutes, then the entirety of the site had access restricted to certain administrators. Personally, I was worried that the reason I was blocked off from accessing my user subpage initially may have had something to do with being a bit too incessant with pleading for upload rights to Andy, or maybe it had something to do with the nasty disputes with RobSmith/VargasMilan/Shobson20, but it could've very well been hackers who are deranged commies. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 10:28, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Conservative said [[User:Conservative/mail#These_500_Errors_are_intolerable|here]] that he thinks the server issues could've been caused by high web traffic. I really have doubts over that, because if such high web traffic was the case, then a 500 ISE would show up, blocking people from accessing this site. Thus the server then has no viewers to handle with and the problem shouldn't take half an hour to resolve. Besides, I haven't seen page views climb exceedingly; even while I've been working really hard (as in possibly sometimes spending 90-100 minutes at a time on a computer screen) on [[United_States_Senate_elections,_2020|this page]] with many edits, the page views hasn't jumped by more than 1,000 in the past few days. I do hope that with good efforts and more hard work, 10,000 views can be reached in the next few days for that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 10:38, 10 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Yeah, the errors are site-wide. Some people have been trying to fix it, with varied success so far. The original announcement was that it was due to heavy traffic or a DDoS attack, and that probably is part of it, but my suspicion is that there is a bug somewhere in the wiki itself or its database, which is perhaps being exacerbated by high load. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:16, 11 August 2020 (EDT)

It's always up for 30 minutes, then down for 40. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 20:46, 14 August 2020 (EDT)
:At least you can access this site. The only reason I'm here is because of a web proxy (sorry about temporarily violating [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member_Accounts|the guidelines]]), because over the last few days, a "403 - Forbidden" notice would pop up every time I try opening CP; I got so confused and puzzled over this that I created an account on RW (very hesitantly) just so I could ask RobSmith what was going on. And I still don't know the answer to the latter. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 21:47, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

:Also, if there's really no other way to get on here, do you suppose it's okay to use a proxy to get on CP here for now, at least until "403 - Forbidden" notices stop popping up for me? I really have almost nothing better to do aside from CP editing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 21:51, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

::Email DavidB4 at davidb4p-2154@archnet.us and give him your external IP address and get him to tell the system to stop blocking it. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:45, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Can't DavidB4 just use check user to find out the IP address I normally use? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 22:50, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

::::LT, I can't believe that was you; I figured it to be just another of Ace's socks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:35, 14 August 2020 (EDT)
::::Anyway I got 3 day block for talking about KKKommie-la. Anything that doesn't toe the party line is racist, misogynist, and reborn birtherism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:39, 14 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Yeah, unfortunately for now, the only way I can edit is through [https://www.kproxy.com/ this proxy], which allows me to bypass the "403 - Forbidden" errors but not the "500 - Internal Server Errors"; that at least allows me to access this site. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 00:34, 15 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::It looks like my reply was lost when this site was being upgraded to a new server. In case you didn't see my reply, I posted that I had gotten your IP, and ensured that it was unblocked. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::The problem is that I'm still unable to access CP normally because of "403 - Forbidden" pop-ups. Since you're a tech expert, do you suppose it could have something to do with something on my end, such as the IP address I normally use and the WiFi associated with it that I'm connected to? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 01:03, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Still?? Hmmm...that shouldn't be happening. Since my last post a couple days ago, all IPs should have been unblocked. Do I assume correctly that you tried the usual process of clearing your cookies and browser cache, and connecting in with Private Browsing? 
I grabbed the IP address you have been using up until August 10th. Since then, you've been connecting in from a lot of different IPs, probably from your proxy service...unfortunately, I can't tell for sure which one(s) used since then are your real IP. If clearing your browser doesn't work, could you get your external IP (using a service like this: https://www.whatsmyip.org ) and send it to me either via email, or using [https://l.archnet.us/emaildavidb4cp this form] (no email address required for that)? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:It's important to flush the entire browser cache history if errors are still occurring, or try to access from a new browser than you have not used.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Andy, I just cleared my browser of the cache history and opened a new window, but that didn't stop the pop-up. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 01:41, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Liberaltears, I got your message. Would it be convenient for you to try accessing CP from another internet connection using the same computer you are currently having issues from? I expect it will work to do this, but if it doesn't that might help us nail down the issue. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:18, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::I unfortunately don't have access to other internet connections at the moment. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 10:41, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Hmm...Okay. Well I'm at a bit of a loss. Andy says all the IP blocks have been cleared, so the only reason I can think of that you would still be blocked is that somewhere, something is cached which should not be. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:38, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::Another pretty basic suggestion: did you try using a different browser altogether? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::I just tried directly accessing CP with two other browsers, but neither have worked. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 22:33, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Interesting. Okay, I have a couple more another harebrained suggestions. If you want, first try clearing your PC's DNS cache. On Windows, you can do this by opening Command Prompt, and typing in "ipconfig /flushdns" (without the quotes) and pressing enter. If you still can't access CP after that, next try setting a custom DNS server in your operating system or browser. Since the process differs from one browser to another, it might be easiest to set it in your operating system. If this doesn't work, it's easy to undo. [https://pchelp.ricmedia.com/set-custom-dns-servers-windows/ Here is a guide] for setting it up on Windows. I would suggest using Cloudflare for this purpose (1.1.1.1 & 1.0.0.1) although there and other good options out there, like OpenDNS (208.67.222.222 & 208.67.220.220). Once set, clear your system's DNS cache again, and see if that works. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:49, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I tried the first suggestion, but it didn't work. Regarding the second idea, it was somewhat confusing, and I'm not sure if I did it right, but it didn't work either. I'm just wondering though, why would such an error even occur in the first place? That type of problem never happened for me before the server problems that started showing up around four weeks ago. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 23:19, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

Yeah, sorry about that...it's not a very intuitive process. They don't expect average users to be tinkering with that. 
The answer to your question is somewhat complicated, but I will do my best to explain it. When CP changed over to its new server, the website's IP address changed. So, the domain name record was updated. This means that when you try going to "conservapedia.com," your browser retrieves the new server's IP, rather than the old one. It then connects to that IP address, and the average user is none the wiser that anything has changed. However, the domain name system is a complicated network of servers and caches, so it can take a little time for everyone to get the update. There are also safeguards in place to prevent anyone from being out of date for too long, typically. My thinking here is that perhaps your computer still has the old IP address, rather than the new one. This could happen for a few reasons, but realistically shouldn't happen for anywhere near this much time. Theoretically, your computer itself could have the old address cached. This means that it wouldn't even bother to ask anyone where to look for "conservapedia.com," but rather just go to where it always goes (which has recently become incorrect). However, there is an expiration date attached to that DNS record, so typically within a week, your computer will decide it is time to go ask someone else if the site has moved. (We forced it to do this, by clearing your DNS cache.) It gets an update by sending a request to your local DNS server, which is typically run by your internet service provider (ISP). Your ISP then in turn looks up that information from more authoritative source of information (ultimately an internet root server, although they may be intermediary servers). So, if your computer isn't caching the old DNS record longer than it should, my thinking was that perhaps it is getting a stale record from your upstream DNS server. That is why I suggested trying a different DNS server. 
Here's another idea: Try connecting to Conservapedia's IP address, rather than domain name: https://96.125.173.110/Main_Page
Your browser will give your a security warning or error message, because the HTTPS encryption isn't designed to work without a domain name. Most browsers still give you an option to continue to the site, although Chrome might not. I also would '''not''' recommend logging in to your account this way, since your credentials could be intercepted by malicious individuals online. However, there is no harm in just connecting, to see if you still get the error you have been getting. You should be getting the exact same site either way, just with the TLS encryption broken in this case. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:03, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:Oh, okay. Just wondering though, why would I get a "403 - Forbidden" pop-up that says I "don't have permission to access this resource"? I'm not sure why that specific notice appears. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 02:11, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

::If you are connecting to the new CP server, well, you shouldn't be getting it. However, on the old server, some efforts were being made to block off portions of the internet as a temporary mitigation of the excessive server load. However, those blocks were reportedly only ever on the old server, so you should old be getting this error if you aren't actually getting connected to the new server. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:27, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:::If that's the case, then it must be that I'm automatically connecting to the old server when trying to access CP. How long should it take at most before I connect to the new server? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 02:46, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

::::The current CP DNS record expires every 60 minutes. So, within one hour, you should start being directed to the new site, unless the old DNS record was different. That's why I don't see how/why this could even be happening. I have no better ideas at present, though. Did you try going [https://96.125.173.110/Main_Page here] (and continuing through the encryption error page), to see if you get the same 403 error? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:15, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Would it be safe for me to add a security exception to access the site? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 14:20, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::It should be fine. What your browser is warning you about is that an HTTPS encrypted connection can be created, but it can't verify that the site is actually who you think it is. HTTPS only works as intended when domain names are used, so replacing the name with its IP address causes it to partially break. So, a security exception in the case will apply only to this IP address (which you can verify is correct by using nslookup on the conservapedia.com record - type "nslookup conservapedia.com" in command prompt to see what IP address you should be using), allowing your browser to connect with the server specified even though it cannot automatically verify it is who you think it is. The only time such a security exception will come into play again is if you again visit this IP address directly in your web browser. The only danger is that you could potentially be going to the wrong address, and end up on a malicious website instead of the one you intend to reach. It's up to you though--you don't need to do this, it just would help us make use that you are getting the 403 error from the new server, rather than the old. If you're not comfortable with it, that's fine. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:29, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::I just tried going on that site, but got the same error popping up. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 14:36, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

Hmm... Well that is very interesting... --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:30, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:There we go! It looks like Andy found the problem, which was affecting you only. Please try it again, and if that doesn't work, clear your cache and retry. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:40, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

::Yep, the site functions normally again! So what had happened that halted me from getting here directly? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 18:50, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Unexpectedly your IP address got caught mistakenly in a small list that carried over from the old system in a deny file. Even though blocks were cleared, your IP address was mistakenly still stuck there. Glad it's working now and sorry for the oversight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:01, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

::::How did my IP address even get into that list? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 19:08, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::I know there was a bit of guesswork involved in troubleshooting things when the site broke, and part of that included trying to figure out if any particular IPs were causing problems in the backend. My guess would be that in this process, your IP was checked along with many others, including mine. It was certainly nothing personal, as they didn't even know who's IP was who's during that process. I got blocked initially as well, along with more than half of the internet. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:43, 3 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::Ah, I see. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 18:07, 3 September 2020 (EDT)

== Minuteman ==

Hi DavidB4, I'm just curious, do you have [[User:Minuteman|Minuteman]] actively set up on CP right now? I have noticed before that the bot would automatically block any user account that has an inappropriate username or vandalizes pages to a certain degree. There has recently been some trolls who have either created accounts under foul names or vandalized pages (particularly [[Special:Contributions/LTtheasswipe|this idiot]] who isn't yet blocked while I'm typing this) that weren't blocked by Minuteman as vandals in the past have. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 19:16, 21 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi Liberaltears, Minuteman detected the site's instability a couple weeks ago, and shut down. I have been keeping it offline since then, while the site was being migrated to better hosting. Now that the site seems stable on this new server, I expect to be starting up Minuteman quite soon. I prefer not to publicly announce when it is going offline, since that would invite additional vandalism. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Ah I see. Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday,

::Too late, that "Coservapedia user get pro help/therapy" guy has been making more stupid socks. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 01:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::You know, one day if a friend of mine ever invites me to a puppet show, I'd be more than happy to go unless it has to do with ''sockpuppets''. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday,

::::You know... [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 05:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
----
I did nothing, and the robot Minuteman blocked me, I don't know why, it says "Temporary Minuteman block". - [[User:Punish China]]

:Hi Punish China, it could've been your post [[Talk:National_Basketball_Association|here]] in caps lock that caused the bot to think that you may have been a troll or something. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Sunday, 14:55, 20 September 2020 (EDT)

::Hi Punish China, it seems there were a few things Minuteman didn't like. Mainly, it was your edits to "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" which it mistakenly thought were plagiarism, and your reference to RW. There were several contributing factors it was looking at for the former, but it still shouldn't have bothered you over these two things. I've made some adjustments, so it shouldn't give you any more trouble. Sorry for the trouble! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:12, 21 September 2020 (EDT)

== Another question ==

Hi DavidB4, I noticed that sometimes when entering CP, a title headline would pop up on the Main Page when such normally doesn't happen. Does it have anything directly to do with the recent errors? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:58, 28 September 2020 (EDT)

:"title headline"? Sorry, I'm not certain what you mean. Could you clarify? --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 02:09, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

::So on the top of almost every page, the page title is automatically displayed, though this isn't the case for the Main Page. However, I noticed on multiple occasions recently that a title appears there, though clicking on "View source" or "View history" will cause it to disappear. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Tuesday, 07:39, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

:::Odd. I see a title on the home page, which is simply "Conservapedia".
:::The site header includes the <code><nowiki><title>Conservapedia</title></nowiki></code> tag, which sets this value. It should always show as this, unless a script on the page changes it. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:21, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

::::I probably should've been more specific, as I'm referring to the headline that shows up right above the contents/tools of a page, whether it's a special page, a content page, its source, history, etc. For example, when typing this response on this section, I see "Editing User talk:DavidB4 (section)". If I go to my contributions page, the headline simply says "User contributions". A headline doesn't show up for the Main Page under normal circumstances. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Tuesday, 13:30, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::Oh, okay. I misunderstood, so thanks for clarifying. Since we have a problem with data queries on the site right now, my best guess would be that yes, this is probably related to that problem. I don't know for sure though. I haven't noticed it, myself. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:48, 29 September 2020 (EDT)

== Webserver allowing spam ==

I noticed that you are blocking lots of IPs, why? And, what is with the "Webserver allowing spam"? - [[User:Punish China]]

:I believe it's because those IP addresses are being used by recent vandals, possibly to evade autoblocks. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>Liberaltears</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Wednesday, 19:46, 30 September 2020 (EDT)

::Those IPs would never be used by legitimate editors. The ones I have been blocking lately are specifically registered to cloud service providers, which are being used to run IP masking services. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:45, 1 October 2020 (EDT)
::Conservapedia's policy is that users must connect from their own IP addresses. Therefore, connecting to CP from any one of those IPs without permission from us would be a breach of that policy. However, for this purpose, I have only blocked account registration from those IPs. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:50, 1 October 2020 (EDT)

== Question about cascading protection ==

Hi DavidB4, I'm just curious about the "cascading" option for page protections, is it possible for non-administrators with the "protect" tag like you to use it when semi-protecting pages? Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 00:18, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

:Yes, it is available for any protection level. Of course, "semi-protection" seems to do nothing, but oh well. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:47, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

::Okay, that's very helpful because there should then be a way to indirectly protect pages so that only anyone with the "protect" and/or "Administrator" tag can edit them; if say, Page A and Page B need to be protected as such, then Page C can be created with "<nowiki></nowiki>" for its content and then be protected with the cascading option turned on. In that case, at least based off the [[Special:ListGroupRights|listed user rights]], editing Page A and Page B would be limited to those with the "protect" or "Administrator" tag. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 08:36, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

:::Yes, in theory. That has sometimes been done for templates, so for example, anything with the homosexuality template gets cascading protection from that template. However, the only two things we can currently base our protection on are "autoconfimed" and "administrator" tags. Autoconfirm is unfortunately not working as intended for some reason, so realistically, the only locking option we have is restricting editing to "Administrator" tags. I wonder if it might be possible to add protection limiting editing to those with the "Edit" tag also, but I don't know if it can or would be done. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

::::So are you referring to pages that have Template:Homosexuality transcluded into them? From my understanding with the way cascading protection works, if the template is protected with cascading turned on, only templates/pages that transclude ''into'' the template would be affected, not pages that have Template:Homosexuality transcluded in them (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, regarding changing the number of protection levels, I think either Andy and/or the webmaster would know about it. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 13:52, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

:::::Oh, no you're right. Yes cascading protection ensures that anything included on that page is also protected. I was getting it mixed up with something else. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 14:04, 15 October 2020 (EDT)

== File request ==

Hi. Can you upload [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_Turkey.svg this file] to the Conservapedia? It's a public domain. - [[User:Andrewlee|Andrewlee]] ([[User talk:Andrewlee|talk]]) 06:26, 17 October 2020 (EDT)

:Sure, here it is: [[:File:Emblem of Turkey.svg.png]] --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:28, 18 October 2020 (EDT)
::Thank you so much! Can you upload those files: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_Caddesi_06_24_09_0068.jpg 1], [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iskenderun_church.jpg 2]? These are also public domain. - [[User:Andrewlee|Andrewlee]] ([[User talk:Andrewlee|talk]]) 12:09, 30 October 2020 (EDT)
Is there a problem? - [[User:Andrewlee|Andrewlee]] ([[User talk:Andrewlee|talk]]) 01:36, 7 November 2020 (EST)
:It could be that DavidB4 is rather busy or didn't see your reply requesting those two files. I just uploaded them [[:File:Istiklal_Caddesi_06_24_09_0068.jpg|here]] and [[:File:Iskenderun_church.jpg|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Saturday, 11:39, 7 November 2020 (EST)

::Andrewlee, thanks for the reminder there--I apologize, but I have had very little free time lately. Thank you LT for doing that! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 03:12, 9 November 2020 (EST)

Hello, could you update the source link in this image? Correct link to LOC. [https://www.loc.gov/item/2009633684/] The link to "thisnation" has expired.
[[File:W-pray.jpg|left|200px|thumb|painted by H. Brueckner; engd. by John C. McRae]]
{{clear}}

== Why you undoed my edit ==
I was redirecting the page by copy+paste, then you moved automatically without doing that. So, the pages got switched, and the new page that got switched to the old page said #REDIRECT (New page), and the edit history was moved. Thus, my edit was undoed. (I had no intention to cause trouble) Am I right? --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (EST)

:The problem is that pages are not suposed to be moved using cut+paste. The edit history of pages must also be moved, along with the text. Otherwise, you are essentailly telling the world that you wrote the entire page, even though you didn't. I didn't think there were any subsiquent edits to the new page, so I deleted it to make room for the original, then moved that with its edit hitory to the new name. If there were subsiquent edits to the new page you created, they were unfortunately lost...I do appologize for that. I would have tried to preserve them if I had noticed. I would basically need to paste in your edits from the new page to the origianl, and include your name on the edit summary. That's that I typically do this this situation, although it's not at all ideal. Sorry for missing that! --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (EST)

== Request for DavidB4-bot ==

Hi DavidB4, if you have the time, can you see if you can have DavidB4-bot remove any zero-width spacing from CP pages that include it, particularly BHathorn's page creations? In articles like [[Bernard Bagert, Sr.|this one]], [[Major de Pingre'|this one]], and [[Bob McFarland|this one]], it causes an extraneous spacing due to it apparently being used on the top and bottom of the page, but it's invisible property makes it hard to find and remove, and this seems to be the case with dozens and dozens of pages. Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Saturday, 00:06, 19 December 2020 (EST)

:Interesting...I've never really dealt with ZWSP issues before. I'll see what my options for this are. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:49, 23 December 2020 (EST)

::Okay, thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Wednesday, 18:43, 23 December 2020 (EST)

== What has happened with CreationWiki ==

Is there any way to contact the moderators of CreationWiki.org because it is a major source for Creation Science and it has been down for a long time. If you could contact them ask them what is happening and tell them to make the website to be back online. User:Kirikagure, 31 December 2020

Talk:Japanese animation

2020-12-07T19:27:47Z

Kirikagure: /* Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife */

I'd like to make a glossary of Japanese terms, such as ''hentai'', used by Western ''anime'' fans. Wikipedia uses far too many of these loan words, and I feel it obscures understanding for those who are not immersed in field. Too much [[jargon]] is the enemy of understanding. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, leave me a message on my talk when you get started on that glossary; I can probably help out a bit. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 09:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt it's that confusing; Wikipedia has articles on the majority of the loanwords it uses...
:Besides, can't have an entry on hentai here. Hentai isn't family friendly, last time I checked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== Might be misleading. ==

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, with a heavy emphasis on violence and romance which blends seamlessly into softcore porn (and beyond)."

This, in my opinion, gives the impression that if you look towards anime, you'll always find violence, romance, and porn. Although cetain anime types are just this, anime is much more broad than violence, romance,and porn!

This is like saying:

"Motion pictures have a heavy emphasis on violence and porn (and beyond)."
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not exactly: they do have a lot of violence and sex, though. ''Anime'' tends to have much more of this than Western animation, though.

:If you have access to studies which shed light on this, please reveal these!

:If you know anything about Japanese animation, please tell us how much of it is violent (or not), and how much is romantic, soft porn, or ''[[ecchi]]'' (i.e., porn). For example, how would you classify [[Sailor Moon]]? Have you seen even one episode without a romance or soft-porn aspect?

:The most popular ''anime'' in the US for children is all about training "pocket-sized monsters" ([[Pokemon]]) to fight each other. It looks pretty violent to me. What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've changed it to:

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, much with an emphasis on violence, romance, pornography, and beyond."

I thought it unfair to say "Anime is". I'm very aware that a large portion is devoted to just what the article says though. Hence, I've changed it to "Much is." --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 20:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Italicization ==

Is it really nessecary to italicize every instance of the word "anime"? If so, why not do it for [[manga]], as well? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is a serious need for updating. ==

>_> Why are there, like, 3 sentances about anime? Why DOES it need to be /i/ all the time?

And instead of being terribly vauge about anime, get specific. Don't tell people what they should think about it, give them the facts! >_<

If people still want the anime and manga pages updated and expanded, I don't mind pitching in, self-proclaimed otaku that I am. [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to add details about popular Japanese folklore, next... I am tired of people saying Goku is inspired by shaman masks. [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== Nicer page than I expected ==

I actually expected Anime to be torn appart and burned, but this is the most neutral page I have seen. I'm going to do some reserach and find some Conservative leaning Anime and Manga for suggestions for people to check out. So long and everyone understand the line between fantasy and reality with these. They are just stories, don't cha know. Infact, I just thought of one. Code Geass. It is basically the American Revolution placed in Japan. Aside from violence (It is a war.) And apparently the anti-hero using his mind control power on a sentient being described as 'God', the Anime is very good and worth a look at. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Revert ==

I reverted the most recent edit because the tone was incurably un-encyclopedic. The content seemed fairly reasonable, but it was all worded like a talk page entry rather than an article. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:58, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

: Ya, apparently I'm still new to this. I keep reading up on what other articals are doing and what the help pages said but I guess I can't organize my words like an Encyclopedia... Oh well.

:: I'm not in a position of authority here, but I'd say the content I reverted would be suited to an essay - encyclopedia articles need to be balanced and factual, but an essay can express a point of view in a more discursive style. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:27, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife ==

Hello, in this discussion section of Conservapedia i would like to note how Anime and Manga has ties with Christianity both ontological and epistemological, how it is essentialy part of the Image of God and why there is no reason for keeping away from the medium anymore simply because of some old misconceptions from the united states. The terms Anime and Manga are universal now and are not tied to a specific place even though they originated from Japan, anime and manga is now a universal aspect and ecompasses this perfected form of artstyle and emotions that manifest everything in its most perfected appearance.

The ontological aspect is that God has made mankind in His Image and the anime and manga worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to manifest in the afterlife. Since Anime and Manga have every imaginable genre and subgenre with millions of franchises, there are of course some genres of anime that might be sinful but this is only because these are also part of the fallen nature of man and anime and manga encompass everything that makes up mankind. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The epistemological aspect is that Christianity is the foundation of modern civilizations, the hospital system, the university system, the airport system, technology, the internet and so on, this started early in the church history and after with the scientific revolution of the 16h century which was made possible only through a Christian framework because of people that had the common knowledge that firstly God created an orderly universe, secondly that because mankind is made in His image humans are able to understand the universe, thirdly by discovering his creation as well as the general revelation of his nature it helped in understand more of the Creator and the divine altogether, and fourthly because understanding the universe was also a form of Worship. While this knowledge expanded and was spread worldwide, the discovery of Anime and Manga finally came to be revealed, which manifests everything in the most beautiful and stylish appearances.

After seeing some very old comments in the talk page section of Conservapedia regarding Anime it seems like there was some sort of unreasonable and outdated denunciation towards the medium from americans specific, and the problem with this is that this sort of outdated aggresion has nothing to do with Christianity or Conservatism in general, but with American Nationalism specific. and even though nationalism is not neccessarily a bad thing, in this case sadly it makes Christianity in the far west look bad as well and in an unjustified way because it drags down the system that Jesus revealed into some wrongly put opinions of a specific country which gives overall a bad image since Anime and Manga are universal and an essential aspect of Christianity. Also labeling the worlds of anime with the term fantasy as in a way of denouncing them does not make much sense since all of these anime and manga worlds were created by the desire and promise of Jesus for the afterlife which existed since the fall at the Garden of Eden, and they even though the anime worlds are immaterial at the moment they still exist in the souls of people and within the nature of God.

Finally an additional note is for a specific genre, the Isekai. The main purpose for Isekai genre specific is simply because of the afterlife and the spiritual desires that everyone has, throughout the entire history of mankind, all civilizations have unnanimously believed in the immortality of the soul, the spirit world and the Presence of God as common knowledge, passing away and the afterlife has always been the most important question for every individual, nothing can change the importance of this spiritual reality. Anime manifests everything in the most aesthetically beautiful way possible and the Isekai genre reveals many various worlds and aspects that people desire to have in the afterlife. The fullness of the Isekai storylines is to explore possible things such as worlds and characters that you can have and create in the afterlife by the grace of the Lord Jesus and as anime manifestations they reach the most perfected appearances, like true Heaven.

:Ok, first of all, look at Sailor Moon. It clearly glorifies homosexuality with Kunzite/Zoicite and Haruka/Michiru. Rei is also a Miko of the Japanese Shinto religion which is wholly incompatible with Christianity [https://www.gotquestions.org/Shintoism.html]. Second, the Dragon Ball franchise has supernatural concepts such as Ki and it's depictions of the afterlife which are also equally incompatible. Dragon Ball Z even has a character called "Mr. Satan" for crying out loud. Even Cardcaptor Sakura with it's cute imagery has Sakura's best friend having a lesbian crush on her and Sakura's brother has a gay crush on his best friend. At CP, we are not politically correct, we believe the Bible in exactly what it says about homosexuality, that God is the only God, and that Jesus is the only way to him. anything that opposes that is the literal meaning of sin, meaning to "miss the mark." Sign your posts with four tildes. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:43, 7 December 2020 (EST)

This query is answered at paragraph two in the ontological aspect, because Anime and Manga have an innate connection with the Image of God, they encompass every genre and subgenre that could exist, which means they inevitably also include some genres and characteristics that are sinful and depraved in nature, because evil is part of the current fallen nature of man and anime and manga encompass everything that makes up mankind, the good and virtuous aspects however are the ones that will persevere in the anime worlds at the promise of salvation in Heaven. Moreover it is true that Shinto is not compatible with Christianity but it is as far as Japan could reach through the general revelation of God before receiving the Gospel of Jesus, although Anime and Manga have an essential link within Christianity because it is the foundation from God and also the concepts of Heaven and Hell are almost universal and are included in Shinto as well in a different form, there are some things that God has made sure that everyone would know. Anime and Manga is as well an innate aspect of the Image of God which manifests everything with the most beautiful and emotional appearance. [[User:Kirikagure|Kirikagure]] 2:06 PM, 7 December 2020 (EDT)

Talk:CreationWiki

2020-12-07T10:39:39Z

Kirikagure: /* Unable to access CreationWiki this period */ new section

People are always bashing creationists :-(. To be clear, I mean this to compliment DanH on blocking the recent vandalism. -[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

== Problems logging in to CreationWiki ==
::Is there something wrong with that site right now? Everytime I try to go to it I get an "Error: 403 Forbidden" message. Is anyone else having this problem? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 22:23, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Per your concern, I just tried to logon. It came up for me. Sometimes sites are down for temporary time periods. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::That seems to happen a lot, because I can't access it again, only this time it says "Internet Explorer Cannot Display the Webpage". I wonder if it's under attack '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 14:10, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

:::Be advised that several servers in the CreationWiki server cluster have had a crash today (3 November 2007). Re-installation is required and in progress at this time. The administration of CreationWiki apologizes for the inconvenience.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:13, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the advice. I had logged in there for the first time in a month or two, and it happened after I logged in. No, I'm sure I'm not responsible for the crash! :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:04, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Update: The current message is that the servers are "taking too long to respond." That's a slight change from "Unable to connect," a flat-out refusal that occurred in less than one second. This one takes more than a minute. My read: they're getting somewhere, but they're not fully reinstalled yet.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:00, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Further update: CreationWiki is back on-line, but all changes made since late Friday evening have been lost--and in fact the site seems to have suffered some "retrograde amnesia." That sort of thing is unavoidable when a server cluster suffers multiple crashes since the last backup.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Anyone know what happend to it this time? The site has been down for at least the last 2 weeks. [[User:DanCon|DanCon]] 01:24, 19 February 2008 (EST)
: See [[User talk:Scorpion#CreationWiki|here]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:14, 19 February 2008 (EST)

== Why was this removed? ==

Why was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=CreationWiki&diff=1290736&oldid=1242041 this] removed? It seems relevant to the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Unable to access CreationWiki this period ==

For some days or weeks it seems that CreationWiki is down with the message "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties." Does anyone know what happened to CreationWiki.org and why is it not accessible for such a long time, was it under some sort of attack or something. It says "Try waiting a few minutes and reloading." but it has been weeks since the problem.

Talk:Japanese animation

2020-12-07T08:38:00Z

Kirikagure: /* Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife */

I'd like to make a glossary of Japanese terms, such as ''hentai'', used by Western ''anime'' fans. Wikipedia uses far too many of these loan words, and I feel it obscures understanding for those who are not immersed in field. Too much [[jargon]] is the enemy of understanding. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, leave me a message on my talk when you get started on that glossary; I can probably help out a bit. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 09:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt it's that confusing; Wikipedia has articles on the majority of the loanwords it uses...
:Besides, can't have an entry on hentai here. Hentai isn't family friendly, last time I checked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== Might be misleading. ==

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, with a heavy emphasis on violence and romance which blends seamlessly into softcore porn (and beyond)."

This, in my opinion, gives the impression that if you look towards anime, you'll always find violence, romance, and porn. Although cetain anime types are just this, anime is much more broad than violence, romance,and porn!

This is like saying:

"Motion pictures have a heavy emphasis on violence and porn (and beyond)."
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not exactly: they do have a lot of violence and sex, though. ''Anime'' tends to have much more of this than Western animation, though.

:If you have access to studies which shed light on this, please reveal these!

:If you know anything about Japanese animation, please tell us how much of it is violent (or not), and how much is romantic, soft porn, or ''[[ecchi]]'' (i.e., porn). For example, how would you classify [[Sailor Moon]]? Have you seen even one episode without a romance or soft-porn aspect?

:The most popular ''anime'' in the US for children is all about training "pocket-sized monsters" ([[Pokemon]]) to fight each other. It looks pretty violent to me. What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've changed it to:

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, much with an emphasis on violence, romance, pornography, and beyond."

I thought it unfair to say "Anime is". I'm very aware that a large portion is devoted to just what the article says though. Hence, I've changed it to "Much is." --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 20:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Italicization ==

Is it really nessecary to italicize every instance of the word "anime"? If so, why not do it for [[manga]], as well? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is a serious need for updating. ==

>_> Why are there, like, 3 sentances about anime? Why DOES it need to be /i/ all the time?

And instead of being terribly vauge about anime, get specific. Don't tell people what they should think about it, give them the facts! >_<

If people still want the anime and manga pages updated and expanded, I don't mind pitching in, self-proclaimed otaku that I am. [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to add details about popular Japanese folklore, next... I am tired of people saying Goku is inspired by shaman masks. [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== Nicer page than I expected ==

I actually expected Anime to be torn appart and burned, but this is the most neutral page I have seen. I'm going to do some reserach and find some Conservative leaning Anime and Manga for suggestions for people to check out. So long and everyone understand the line between fantasy and reality with these. They are just stories, don't cha know. Infact, I just thought of one. Code Geass. It is basically the American Revolution placed in Japan. Aside from violence (It is a war.) And apparently the anti-hero using his mind control power on a sentient being described as 'God', the Anime is very good and worth a look at. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Revert ==

I reverted the most recent edit because the tone was incurably un-encyclopedic. The content seemed fairly reasonable, but it was all worded like a talk page entry rather than an article. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:58, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

: Ya, apparently I'm still new to this. I keep reading up on what other articals are doing and what the help pages said but I guess I can't organize my words like an Encyclopedia... Oh well.

:: I'm not in a position of authority here, but I'd say the content I reverted would be suited to an essay - encyclopedia articles need to be balanced and factual, but an essay can express a point of view in a more discursive style. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:27, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife ==

Hello, in this discussion section of Conservapedia i would like to note how Anime and Manga has ties with Christianity both ontological and epistemological, how it is essentialy part of the Image of God and why there is no reason for keeping away from the medium anymore simply because of some old misconceptions from the united states. The terms Anime and Manga are universal now and are not tied to a specific place even though they originated from Japan, anime and manga is now a universal aspect and ecompasses this perfected form of artstyle and emotions that manifest everything in its most perfected appearance.

The ontological aspect is that God has made mankind in His Image and the anime and manga worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to manifest in the afterlife. Since Anime and Manga have every imaginable genre and subgenre with millions of franchises, there are of course some genres of anime that might be sinful but this is only because these are also part of the fallen nature of man and anime and manga encompass everything that makes up mankind. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The epistemological aspect is that Christianity is the foundation of modern civilizations, the hospital system, the university system, the airport system, technology, the internet and so on, and all of this started with the scientific revolution of the 16h century which was made possible only through a Christian framework because of people that had the common knowledge that firstly God created an orderly universe, secondly that because mankind is made in His image humans are able to understand the universe, thirdly by discovering his creation as well as the general revelation of his nature it helped in understand more of the Creator and the divine altogether, and fourthly because understanding the universe was also a form of Worship. While this knowledge expanded and was spread worldwide, the discovery of Anime and Manga finally came to be revealed, which manifests everything in the most beautiful and stylish appearances.

After seeing some very old comments in the talk page section of Conservapedia regarding Anime it seems like there was some sort of unreasonable and outdated denunciation towards the medium from americans specific, and the problem with this is that this sort of outdated aggresion has nothing to do with Christianity or Conservatism in general, but with American Nationalism specific. and even though nationalism is not neccessarily a bad thing, in this case sadly it makes Christianity in the far west look bad as well and in an unjustified way because it drags down the system that Jesus revealed into some wrongly put opinions of a specific country which gives overall a bad image since Anime and Manga are universal and an essential aspect of Christianity. Also labeling the worlds of anime with the term fantasy as in a way of denouncing them does not make much sense since all of these anime and manga worlds were created by the desire and promise of Jesus for the afterlife which existed since the fall at the Garden of Eden, and they even though the anime worlds are immaterial at the moment they still exist in the souls of people and within the nature of God.

Finally an additional note is for a specific genre, the Isekai. The main purpose for Isekai genre specific is simply because of the afterlife and the spiritual desires that everyone has, throughout the entire history of mankind, all civilizations have unnanimously believed in the immortality of the soul, the spirit world and the Presence of God as common knowledge, passing away and the afterlife has always been the most important question for every individual, nothing can change the importance of this spiritual reality. Anime manifests everything in the most aesthetically beautiful way possible and the Isekai genre reveals many various worlds and aspects that people desire to have in the afterlife. The fullness of the Isekai storylines is to explore possible things such as worlds and characters that you can have and create in the afterlife by the grace of the Lord Jesus and as anime manifestations they reach the most perfected appearances, like true Heaven.

Talk:Japanese animation

2020-12-07T08:00:21Z

Kirikagure: /* Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife */

I'd like to make a glossary of Japanese terms, such as ''hentai'', used by Western ''anime'' fans. Wikipedia uses far too many of these loan words, and I feel it obscures understanding for those who are not immersed in field. Too much [[jargon]] is the enemy of understanding. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, leave me a message on my talk when you get started on that glossary; I can probably help out a bit. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 09:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt it's that confusing; Wikipedia has articles on the majority of the loanwords it uses...
:Besides, can't have an entry on hentai here. Hentai isn't family friendly, last time I checked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== Might be misleading. ==

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, with a heavy emphasis on violence and romance which blends seamlessly into softcore porn (and beyond)."

This, in my opinion, gives the impression that if you look towards anime, you'll always find violence, romance, and porn. Although cetain anime types are just this, anime is much more broad than violence, romance,and porn!

This is like saying:

"Motion pictures have a heavy emphasis on violence and porn (and beyond)."
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not exactly: they do have a lot of violence and sex, though. ''Anime'' tends to have much more of this than Western animation, though.

:If you have access to studies which shed light on this, please reveal these!

:If you know anything about Japanese animation, please tell us how much of it is violent (or not), and how much is romantic, soft porn, or ''[[ecchi]]'' (i.e., porn). For example, how would you classify [[Sailor Moon]]? Have you seen even one episode without a romance or soft-porn aspect?

:The most popular ''anime'' in the US for children is all about training "pocket-sized monsters" ([[Pokemon]]) to fight each other. It looks pretty violent to me. What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've changed it to:

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, much with an emphasis on violence, romance, pornography, and beyond."

I thought it unfair to say "Anime is". I'm very aware that a large portion is devoted to just what the article says though. Hence, I've changed it to "Much is." --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 20:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Italicization ==

Is it really nessecary to italicize every instance of the word "anime"? If so, why not do it for [[manga]], as well? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is a serious need for updating. ==

>_> Why are there, like, 3 sentances about anime? Why DOES it need to be /i/ all the time?

And instead of being terribly vauge about anime, get specific. Don't tell people what they should think about it, give them the facts! >_<

If people still want the anime and manga pages updated and expanded, I don't mind pitching in, self-proclaimed otaku that I am. [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to add details about popular Japanese folklore, next... I am tired of people saying Goku is inspired by shaman masks. [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== Nicer page than I expected ==

I actually expected Anime to be torn appart and burned, but this is the most neutral page I have seen. I'm going to do some reserach and find some Conservative leaning Anime and Manga for suggestions for people to check out. So long and everyone understand the line between fantasy and reality with these. They are just stories, don't cha know. Infact, I just thought of one. Code Geass. It is basically the American Revolution placed in Japan. Aside from violence (It is a war.) And apparently the anti-hero using his mind control power on a sentient being described as 'God', the Anime is very good and worth a look at. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Revert ==

I reverted the most recent edit because the tone was incurably un-encyclopedic. The content seemed fairly reasonable, but it was all worded like a talk page entry rather than an article. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:58, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

: Ya, apparently I'm still new to this. I keep reading up on what other articals are doing and what the help pages said but I guess I can't organize my words like an Encyclopedia... Oh well.

:: I'm not in a position of authority here, but I'd say the content I reverted would be suited to an essay - encyclopedia articles need to be balanced and factual, but an essay can express a point of view in a more discursive style. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:27, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife ==

Hello, in this discussion section of Conservapedia i would like to note how Anime and Manga has ties with Christianity both ontological and epistemological, how it is essentialy part of the Image of God and why there is no reason for keeping away from the medium anymore simply because of some old misconceptions from the united states. The terms Anime and Manga are universal now and are not tied to a specific place even though they originated from Japan, anime and manga is now a universal aspect and ecompasses this perfected form of artstyle and emotions that manifest everything in its most perfected appearance.

The ontological aspect is that God has made mankind in His Image and the anime and manga worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to manifest in the afterlife. Since Anime and Manga have every imaginable genre and subgenre with millions of franchises, there are of course some genres of anime that might be sinful but this is only because these are also part of the fallen nature of man and anime and manga encompass everything that makes up mankind. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The epistemological aspect is that Christianity is the foundation of modern civilizations, science, technology, the internet, the hospital system, the university system and so on, and all of these were made possible because of people that had the common knowledge that God created an orderly universe and because mankind is made in His image, by discovering his creation as well as the general revelation of his nature it helped in understand more of the divine and was also a form of Worship. While this knowledge expanded and was spread worldwide, the discovery of Anime and Manga finally came to be revealed, which manifest everything in the most beautiful and stylish appearances.

After seeing some very old comments in the talk page section of Conservapedia regarding Anime it seems like there was some sort of unreasonable and outdated denunciation towards the medium from americans specific, and the problem with this is that this sort of outdated aggresion has nothing to do with Christianity or Conservatism in general, but with American Nationalism specific. and even though nationalism is not neccessarily a bad thing, in this case sadly it makes Christianity in the far west look bad as well and in an unjustified way because it drags down the system that Jesus revealed into some wrongly put opinions of a specific country which gives overall a bad image since Anime and Manga are universal and an essential aspect of Christianity. Also labeling the worlds of anime with the term fantasy as in a way of denouncing them does not make much sense since all of these anime and manga worlds were created by the desire and promise of Jesus for the afterlife which existed since the fall at the Garden of Eden, and they even though the anime worlds are immaterial at the moment they still exist in the souls of people and within the nature of God.

Finally an additional note is for a specific genre, the Isekai. The main purpose for Isekai genre specific is simply because of the afterlife and the spiritual desires that everyone has, throughout the entire history of mankind, all civilizations have unnanimously believed in the immortality of the soul, the spirit world and the Presence of God as common knowledge, passing away and the afterlife has always been the most important question for every individual, nothing can change the importance of this spiritual reality. Anime manifests everything in the most aesthetically beautiful way possible and the Isekai genre reveals many various worlds and aspects that people desire to have in the afterlife. The fullness of the Isekai storylines is to explore possible things such as worlds and characters that you can have and create in the afterlife by the grace of the Lord Jesus and as anime manifestations they reach the most perfected appearances, like true Heaven.

Talk:Japanese animation

2020-12-07T07:54:15Z

Kirikagure: /* Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife */ new section

I'd like to make a glossary of Japanese terms, such as ''hentai'', used by Western ''anime'' fans. Wikipedia uses far too many of these loan words, and I feel it obscures understanding for those who are not immersed in field. Too much [[jargon]] is the enemy of understanding. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, leave me a message on my talk when you get started on that glossary; I can probably help out a bit. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 09:23, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:I doubt it's that confusing; Wikipedia has articles on the majority of the loanwords it uses...
:Besides, can't have an entry on hentai here. Hentai isn't family friendly, last time I checked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== Might be misleading. ==

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, with a heavy emphasis on violence and romance which blends seamlessly into softcore porn (and beyond)."

This, in my opinion, gives the impression that if you look towards anime, you'll always find violence, romance, and porn. Although cetain anime types are just this, anime is much more broad than violence, romance,and porn!

This is like saying:

"Motion pictures have a heavy emphasis on violence and porn (and beyond)."
--[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 21:54, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:Not exactly: they do have a lot of violence and sex, though. ''Anime'' tends to have much more of this than Western animation, though.

:If you have access to studies which shed light on this, please reveal these!

:If you know anything about Japanese animation, please tell us how much of it is violent (or not), and how much is romantic, soft porn, or ''[[ecchi]]'' (i.e., porn). For example, how would you classify [[Sailor Moon]]? Have you seen even one episode without a romance or soft-porn aspect?

:The most popular ''anime'' in the US for children is all about training "pocket-sized monsters" ([[Pokemon]]) to fight each other. It looks pretty violent to me. What do you think? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've changed it to:

"Anime is divided into the same genres as manga, much with an emphasis on violence, romance, pornography, and beyond."

I thought it unfair to say "Anime is". I'm very aware that a large portion is devoted to just what the article says though. Hence, I've changed it to "Much is." --[[User:Funnny|Funnny]] 20:06, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Italicization ==

Is it really nessecary to italicize every instance of the word "anime"? If so, why not do it for [[manga]], as well? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:30, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is a serious need for updating. ==

>_> Why are there, like, 3 sentances about anime? Why DOES it need to be /i/ all the time?

And instead of being terribly vauge about anime, get specific. Don't tell people what they should think about it, give them the facts! >_<

If people still want the anime and manga pages updated and expanded, I don't mind pitching in, self-proclaimed otaku that I am. [[User:Welshman|Welshman]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to add details about popular Japanese folklore, next... I am tired of people saying Goku is inspired by shaman masks. [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

== Nicer page than I expected ==

I actually expected Anime to be torn appart and burned, but this is the most neutral page I have seen. I'm going to do some reserach and find some Conservative leaning Anime and Manga for suggestions for people to check out. So long and everyone understand the line between fantasy and reality with these. They are just stories, don't cha know. Infact, I just thought of one. Code Geass. It is basically the American Revolution placed in Japan. Aside from violence (It is a war.) And apparently the anti-hero using his mind control power on a sentient being described as 'God', the Anime is very good and worth a look at. [[User:MHarris|MHarris]]

== Revert ==

I reverted the most recent edit because the tone was incurably un-encyclopedic. The content seemed fairly reasonable, but it was all worded like a talk page entry rather than an article. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:58, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

: Ya, apparently I'm still new to this. I keep reading up on what other articals are doing and what the help pages said but I guess I can't organize my words like an Encyclopedia... Oh well.

:: I'm not in a position of authority here, but I'd say the content I reverted would be suited to an essay - encyclopedia articles need to be balanced and factual, but an essay can express a point of view in a more discursive style. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:27, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Christianity and Anime as part of the Image of God and the Afterlife ==

Hello, in this discussion section of Conservapedia i would like to note how Anime and Manga has ties with Christianity both ontological and epistemological, how it is essentialy part of the Image of God and why there is no reason for keeping away from the medium anymore simply because of some old misconceptions from the united states. The terms Anime and Manga are universal now and are not tied to a specific place even though they originated from Japan, anime and manga is now a universal aspect and ecompasses this perfected form of artstyle and emotions that manifest everything in its most perfected appearance.

The ontological aspect is that God has made mankind in His Image and the anime and manga worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to manifest in the afterlife. Since Anime and Manga have every imaginable genre and subgenre with millions of franchises, there are of course some genres of anime that might be sinful but this is only because these are also part of the fallen nature of man and anime and manga encompass everything that makes up mankind. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The epistemological aspect is that Christianity is the foundation of modern civilizations, science, technology, the internet, the hospital system, the university system and so on, and all of these were made possible because of people that had the common knowledge that God created an orderly universe and because mankind is made in His image, by discovering his creation as well as the general revelation of his nature it helped in understand more of the divine and was also a form of Worship. While this knowledge expanded and was spread worldwide, the discovery of Anime and Manga finally came to be revealed, which manifest everything in the most beautiful and stylish appearances.

After seeing some very old comments in the talk page section of Conservapedia regarding Anime it seems like there was some sort of unreasonable and outdated denunciation towards the medium from americans specific, and the problem with this is that this sort of outdated aggresion has nothing to do with Christianity, but with American Nationalism specific, and even though nationalism is not neccessarily a bad thing, in this case sadly it makes Christianity in the far west look bad as well and in an unjustified way because it drags down the system that Jesus revealed into some wrongly put opinions of a specific country which gives overall a bad image since Anime and Manga are universal and an essential aspect of Christianity.

Finally an additional note is for a specific genre, the Isekai. The main purpose for Isekai genre specific is simply because of the afterlife and the spiritual desires that everyone has, throughout the entire history of mankind, all civilizations have unnanimously believed in the immortality of the soul, the spirit world and the Presence of God as common knowledge, passing away and the afterlife has always been the most important question for every individual, nothing can change the importance of this spiritual reality. Anime manifests everything in the most aesthetically beautiful way possible and the Isekai genre reveals many various worlds and aspects that people desire to have in the afterlife. The fullness of the Isekai storylines is to explore possible things such as worlds and characters that you can have and create in the afterlife by the grace of the Lord Jesus and as anime manifestations they reach the most perfected appearances, like true Heaven.

User:Kirikagure

2020-12-06T10:13:44Z

Kirikagure:

Anime and Manga should have surely an essential part in Heaven because it is a wonderful aspect of the Image of God. God has made mankind in His Image and most of the anime worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to look in the afterlife. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that has completely answered all of the fundamental questions of mankind which are origins (who i am, where did i come from), meaning (what is my purpose, why is this all happening), morality (where do objective moral standards come from, what is right and wrong) and destiny (what happens after passing away, the afterlife) while the ultimate turth is revealed at the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”, so as long as your desires are pure and you have found salvation through Jesus, your personal anime world should manifest in your own paradise room in Heaven.

User:Kirikagure

2020-12-06T10:11:33Z

Kirikagure: Personal statement for Anime in Heaven

Anime and Manga should have surely an essential part in the Afterlife because it is a wonderful aspect of the Image of God. God has made mankind in His Image and most of the anime worlds have been created from the desire for eternity and beauty that God has placed in the souls of all people, this is also why anime and manga have such beautiful aesthetics and heartwarming feelings, it reveals how the redeemed spiritual mankind is supposed to look in the afterlife. So as long as your desires are pure, you repent of your sins and place your trust in Christ, your personal anime world and beloved anime characters should manifest in Heaven for all eternity, for the ultimate purpose to glorify God.

The Judeo-Christian worldview is the only worldview that has completely answered all of the fundamental questions of mankind which are origins (who i am, where did i come from), meaning (what is my purpose, why is this all happening), morality (where do objective moral standards come from, what is right and wrong) and destiny (what happens after passing away, the afterlife) while the ultimate turth is revealed at the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ said “My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”, so as long as your desires are pure and you have found salvation through Jesus, your personal anime world should manifest in your own paradise room in Heaven.

Japanese animation

2020-12-06T10:05:11Z

Kirikagure: Replaced that word with general "animation" because the other term is sometimes used as derogatory towards anime, this page in general should have been titled Anime as url and not "japanese animation" on the title because Anime now is a worldwide term

The '''Japanese animation''' industry has attracted much interest in the West, with [[English]]-speaking fans avidly adopting Japanese terminology such as ''anime'' (short for "animation", but used almost exclusively to refer to animated features originating from [[Japan]]) and even ''otaku'' (a derogatory term meaning "obsessive fan",<ref>[http://www.beneaththetangles.com/the-christians-guide-to-anime-and-otaku-dom/ The Christian's Guide to Anime and Otaku-dom] at Beneath the Tangles</ref> the Western equivalents of which are likewise derogatorily called "fanboys" and "fangirls"). The term anime (アニメ) is the short form of the Japanese word ''animeeshon'' (アニメーション), which is itself derived from the English word ''animation''.<ref name="Anime">[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anime Anime] at TV Tropes</ref> Anime shares a similar visual style with its print couterpart ''manga'' and both are derived from the works of Japanese artists such as Osamu Tezuka.<ref name="Anime"/>

The best known ''anime'' director in Japan is [[Hayao Miyazaki]], founder of [[Studio Ghibli]] and famous for ''[[My Neighbor Totoro]]'', ''[[Spirited Away]]'' and ''Princess Mononoke''.

As in the West, Japanese animation tends to follow Japanese comic book styles (called ''[[manga]]''). An author/illustrator of a manga is called a manga-ka. Many anime begin as manga in magazines such as ''Weekly Shounen Jump'', one of the most popular compilations in Japan.

In recent years, the translation process of anime and manga has come under criticism for the process of "Americanization". This process is the editing of the original works so that they can be made more acceptable for the American public. Episodes are known to be shortened to add more time for commercials. Religious influences and [[homosexuality]] are removed so that anime can be shown and marketed to younger audiences. Some directors adopt a policy of "no cuts", where their works cannot be altered and are more literal translations. If this condition is not met, the director will not allow his work to be translated. In some cases, because of the original Japanese producers' utter insistence at literal translations and not allowing for any alterations, the quality of the dub tended to decrease in quality and be considered inferior to the original version. A more infamous example of this was the English dub for ''Love Hina'', where the producers constantly overruled the directors in terms of delivery and often required the voice actors to adopt roles they weren't suited for. Some groups of bilingual speakers have, thus, taken to providing "unofficial" translations for the general public, uploaded to the internet for free. This was one of the major controversies of the SOPA bill that was recently a major issue.

Some non-Japanese animation, particularly such shows as ''Avatar: The Last Airbender'', ''My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic'', ''Totally Spies!'', ''The Amazing Spiez'', ''Code Lyoko'', ''The Boondocks'' and ''Kappa Mikey'', have anime-influenced artwork and appearances (with ''Kappa Mikey'' and ''Totally Spies!'' and its spinoff ''The Amazing Spiez'' being the most anime-like in appearance and feel), showing a heavy influence by the anime style.

==Anime genres==
===Shonen (少年)===
Japanese for ''young boy'', Shounen is the most popular genre in Japan and the most well known outside the country. Aimed at young teen boys, Shounen are often action/adventure series featuring martial arts, Japanese and Chinese folklore, simplistic animation and conceptual fantasy and science fiction. Popular titles that have been translated to English include ''[[Astro Boy]]'', ''Gigantor'', ''The Amazing 3'', ''Jungle Taitei'' (adapted for American audiences as ''Kimba the White Lion''), ''[[Speed Racer]]'', ''Science Ninja Team Gatchaman'' (adapted for American audiences by Sandy Frank as ''Battle of the Planets'' and later by [[Ted Turner]] as ''G-Force: Guardians of Space''), ''Star Blazers'', ''Force Five'', ''Captain Harlock'', ''[[Robotech]]'', ''[[JoJo's Bizarre Adventure]]'', ''[[Naruto]]'', ''Bleach'', ''[[One Piece]]'', ''[[Fist Of The North Star]]'', ''[[Dragon Ball]]''/''[[Dragon Ball Z|Z]]'', ''[[Hunter x Hunter]]'', ''Gundam'', ''[[Attack On Titan]]'',''[[Fullmetal Alchemist]]'',''Prince of Tennis'', and ''[[Sgt. Frog]]''. ''Pokémon'', the 1990s superfad, is also Shonen. 

===Shojo (少女)===
Japanese for ''young girl'', Shoujo is also popular outside of Japan, with such famous dubs as ''Sally the Witch'', ''Princess Knight'', ''Laura the Prairie Girl'' (an adaptation of [[Laura Ingalls Wilder]]'s ''Little House'' books), ''Candy Candy'', ''Sailor Moon'', ''Cardcaptor Sakura'' (''Cardcaptors'' in America), ''Tokyo Mew Mew'' and ''Fruits Basket''. Within Shoujo there is the subgenre of Magical Girl, where an otherwise average Japanese girl has magical powers with which she saves the world. More often than Shounen, Shoujo are romance tales or rely heavily on romance in the plot. The heroine is often saving the world by night and snagging the boy of her dreams by day. 

===Seinen (青年)===
Japanese for ''young man'', Seinen (or seijin) targets the 18 to 40 male audience, though it is not uncommon to find much older men reading manga on the train ride to work. Good examples of seinen anime and manga include: ''[[Ghost in the Shell]]'', ''Gunslinger Girl'', ''Bartender'', ''Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou'', ''[[Cowboy Bebop]]'', ''Elfen Lied'', ''[[Vinland Saga]]'', ''Aria'', ''Bokura no'', ''[[One Punch Man]]'', ''[[Hetalia: Axis Powers]]'', as well as the feature films of [[Satoshi Kon]] and [[Makoto Shinkai]]. Titles like ''Cowboy Bebop'' and ''Ghost in the Shell'' are considered classics, while ''Cowboy Bebop'' was the first anime aired on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block. Seinen shares many elements with shounen, but is often darker and more mature (or immature, depending on the sense of humor) than Shounen, with horror, mystery and suspense. Sometimes, seinen manga features graphic violence, for example in the film ''[[Akira]]''. Often it will also take a slice-of-life look at stories, and provide deeper character insights than shounen action-driven works. 

===Josei (女性)===
Japanese for ''young woman'', and targets women in the 18 to 40 age band. Can also be referred to as "redisu" and "redikomi", the latter being taken from the English "lady comic". It differs from shoujo in that the artistic styles of josei tend to be more realistic and restrained, and the stories tend to be more realistic and mature. Examples of josei manga and anime are ''Paradise Kiss'', ''Hataraki Man'' and ''Honey and Clover''. 

===Kodomo (子供向け)===
Japanese for ''child'', Kodomo are the cartoons most like American cartoons, as in for small children. They are often moral teachings with simple animation. ''Astro Boy'' is the first anime brought to America, having the notoriety that comes with being a child icon for 60 years. Modern titles include ''Hamtaro'' and ''[[Doraemon]]''. 

==Anime and Christianity==
[[Christianity]] is a minority religion in Japan, whose majority faith is [[Shinto]] (with [[Buddhism]] also prominent to a lesser extent); as a result, very few anime series are influenced by Christianity in that country. Of the few that are, notable ones include ''Haibane Renmei'', ''Bunny Drop'' and ''Clannad''.<ref>[http://www.beneaththetangles.com/the-christians-guide-to-anime-and-otaku-dom/christian-anime-recommendations/ Anime Recommendations for Christian Viewers] at Beneath the Tangles</ref> At least three anime adaptations for the Christian story ''A Dog of Flanders'' also exist (two being standard anime series, and one being a feature-length film based on one of the aforementioned series). The ''Pokémon'' anime series, at least the original series, also had some Christian influences, such as the character Brock making a reference to [[Noah]] from the [[Book of Genesis]] in one episode, the character Misty attempting to ward a Gastly off via a crucifix in another episode, and James's (fake) flashback to his childhood depicted him supposedly dying with his Growlithe near the steps of a church, referencing similar scenes from ''The Dog of Flanders'' and/or ''The Little Orphan'' (all of which were surprisingly retained in the Dub). In addition, a major subplot for the first movie had the character Mewtwo questioning its existence, including wondering whether it was in fact created by God, with it being explicitly mentioned that, besides humans, only God has the ability to create things (which, unlike the other examples, was cut from the 4Kids Dub for the movie.). In addition, ''Pocket Monsters: The Animation'', an adaptation for the anime in book form, implied that Pokémon themselves originated as an extra species created by God during the six days of creation, more specifically when he "doodled" them during the seventh day of rest.<ref>http://cindysuke.tumblr.com/post/34817930237/the-facts-about-pokemon-world-lol</ref>

==Criticism of anime==
Anime has come under criticism over the years by animation purists due to most, if not all, anime shows (particularly the more recent shows from the 1980s onward) looking stylistically similar in their artwork and lacking a clear-cut distinction between styles,<ref>[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.247476-Criticism-of-Anime-and-Manga Criticism of Anime and Manga]</ref> as well as being considered inferior in visual style to American animation.<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/notes/i-hate-anime/our-reasons-for-not-liking-anime/556774851034596 Our reasons for not liking anime]</ref> The anime genre has also been criticized for the inclusion of such above-mentioned subject matter as homosexuality, pedophilia, pornography (which has its own anime subgenre, ''hentai''), horror and graphic violence, which tend to make such shows taboo for younger viewers. Another glaring criticism of anime is the poor adaptation of many such shows into English, with poor voice acting (in particular, making some characters sound childish), nonsensically-interpreted storylines and dialogue (especially when the dialogue and/or its tone do not match how a particular character feels in a scene), the changing of character names to ridiculous-sounding names,<ref>[http://www.cornponeflicks.org/harlock/ZIVharlock.html ''Captain Harlock'' vols. one and two by ZIV International] at the Captain Harlock Archives</ref> and the elimination of Japanese cultural references and their replacement with more recognizable pop culture for English-speaking audiences; while done with the intent of sanitizing the translated anime to make it more kid-friendly, such shows end up looking and sounding farcical and non-serious.<ref>[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/05/30/anime-adaptations Anime Adaptations]</ref><ref>[http://fanlore.org/wiki/Anime Anime] at Fanlore Wiki</ref> The most looked down-upon aspect of anime is its hardcore segment of fans (the above-mentioned ''otakus''), who often violently react in extreme, histrionic and illogical fashion to any criticism of the anime genre (including even making death threats to the critics and others who are not anime fans<ref>[https://www.facebook.com/notes/i-hate-anime/questions-asked-when-overprotective-anime-fans-come-to-this-page/815531001825645 Questions asked when overprotective anime fans come to this page]</ref>), giving such fans much in common with [[liberal]]s who react in similar fashion to any criticism of any of the liberal sacred cows like "global warming", the homosexual agenda, abortion, feminism, socialism and Islam.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/ Anime News Network]
*[http://www.funimation.com/ FUNimation Entertainment]

{{Image request|A example of the style of art used in anime.}}
[[Category:Japan]]
[[Category:Anime]]
[[Category:Culture]]