Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Double agent

2007-07-26T21:14:12Z

PheasantHunter: Category:Espionage

A double agent is an agent in contact with two opposing intelligence services, only one of which is aware of the double contact or quasi-intelligence services.
[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Espionage]]

Talk:Mole (chemistry)

2007-07-26T21:06:32Z

PheasantHunter: This article should be moved.

This article should be moved to mole(measurement unit) or something similar , and in its place a disambiguation page should be created. I'd do it, but I don't have move powers. Other uses of this term include:
*skin defect
*espionage/sabatage
Etc. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 17:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-07-26T16:28:12Z

PheasantHunter: Please protect my signature templates

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, Ed Poor Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes...congratulations! I was always horrible at chess...I just move a piece and see what happens...the word strategy does not exist in my dictionary :) [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Congratulations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Belated congrats! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Would you please categorize... ==

the article on [[pornography]]? If I read the history correctly you are the protecting sysop so I figured you'd like first crack at it. May I suggest something simple like "media" for now? I have plans to re-organize many category structures but at the moment that's likely to be your best fit. Of course, you should do as you see fit. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm just doing them alphabetically, honest!

:Hello again,

:Would you also please categorize [[Main Page/new style]]? Thank you, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Good Catch ==

...On the user name "Bush is retarded" spelt backwards. Of course I guess I should expect that from a chess champion. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hitler's vegetarianism==
Hi. What exactly is your source that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian? I've read numerous places that he was, including, I believe, the memoirs of his friend Albert Speer. Is the argument that he wasn't a ''strict'' vegetarian? Because there are numerous definitions of vegetarianism, and some allow for limited meat ingestion. If I recall, his reasons were health and not animal ights, but I don't think that matters. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There's at the very least, enough controversy about whether he was [http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/] that we shouldn't dogmatically say one way or the other. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler's personal chef says his favourite dish was pigeon [http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/]; it seems from various other sources that while he ''preferred'' a vegetarian diet, he deviated enough from it to not be classed as a vegetarian. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sources are numerous. One source of good criticism cites how Hitler was not sympathetic to German soldiers freezing in Russia who asked for meat. Hitler went into a long spiel about how the Roman legions survived on grains, etc., and probably regarded meat eaters as subversive to the Nazi effort. Ultimately, many meat eaters probably betrayed the Nazi cause because of this--Hitler just didn't care if meat eaters got fed or not, and expected everybody to be like him and make the same sacrifices during the privations of a prolonged war, which of course to a vegetarian of many years, are not sacrifices at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The sources for his meat eating and love of ham and bavarian sausages are numerous also [http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm]; many commentators also point out that Hitler never claimed to be a vegetarian, outlawed vegetarian organizations and prevented all measures aimed at easing Germany’s food shortages that involved a reduction in meat consumption. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I want to put a few more pictures in the [[evolution]] article. Do you know how to do that? I want to put a picture of [[Ernst Haeckel]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E I also want to put a picture of [[Stephen Gould]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Punctuated_Equilibrium Please don't use the picture of Stephen Gould used at [[Wikipedia]]. Can you help? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Thanks ==

Thank you for welcoming me, DanH. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 20:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Grunge ==
I agree. A lot of post-grunge bands really ruined grunge. Everclear,Third Eye Blind,Matchbox 20, and even Daughtry (he was classified post-grunge too lol) really turned grunge to pop - rock.

(whoops forgot to sign)

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Favorite Original Grunge Band: Alice In Chains

Favorite Post-Grunge: Three Days Grace or Breaking Benjamin

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:06, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block! Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, a second great block in the same night!!! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== thanks ==

The user who put those questionable comments was a sock of vandal redhungary, who I think you dealt with earlier. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's ark ==

Heya -- I'm interested in making some changes to Noah's ark -- proposed them on the talk page -- any chance you could try unlocking it for a while and see if revert wars and/or vandalism become a problem? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please protect my signature templates ==

The templates in question are:
*[[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]
*[[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]]
and
*[[User:PheasantHunter/sig]]

I am the only person who has any business editing them (aside from Andy). Other users who edit them are probably vandalizing them. Niandra protected them, but then TK unprotected them (he was probably confused since this is a technical issue.) Could you either take it up with other sysops or just go ahead and protect the above templates? Thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Jew

2007-07-26T16:15:10Z

PheasantHunter: rv, please stop vandalism

#REDIRECT [[Judaism]]

Current liabilities

2007-07-26T16:14:34Z

PheasantHunter: rv, please stop vandalism

Current liabilities are debts that fall due within a time period of one year.
[[category:accounting]]

YouTube

2007-07-26T16:13:52Z

PheasantHunter: rv, please stop vandalism

'''YouTube''', a popular internet site that allows users to share videos. The YouTube generation was named Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2006 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html]. In October 2006, Youtube was purchased by [[Google]] Inc. People who claimed it had a liberal bias created [[GodTube]], similar to the creation of Conservapedia by people who believed Wikipedia to be liberal.

== References ==
<references/>
[[category:Information technology]]

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T16:00:43Z

PheasantHunter: /* Block powers? */ TK, ...

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a <nowiki>{{speedy</nowiki> template to [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating ''any'' article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or [[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]]), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to [[Roman Empire]]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Note that [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]] has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

== Clinton Revert.... ==

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Reverts]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidemyself=1&limit=600]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Job==

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus ==

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Saint Andrew ==

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)"
complain about [[Andrew]] and [[Philip]] along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Highlighting Links ==

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it.
Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or [[User_talk:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] when you wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=163608&oldid=163593 this]. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== My pleasure ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

== Edit summaries ==

I appreciate this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=170855&oldid=166181 edit], and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Compliment ==
Excellent work on the Rather article.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Global Warming, et.al. ==

You might want to consider this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==
Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on [[Justinian]]? It seems he is someone you would know much about.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sorry! ==

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with you==
The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

What's the problem with my edit to the [[atheism]] page? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - '''Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic'''") 
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br>
(cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) ('''The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence''') 

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Most of those weren't my edits. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==
Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon ==
Hi, I checked out your [[House of David]] article and followed the first link to [[Solomon]]. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article for your attention please==
[[Four Emperors Era]] needs work and it seems like you would know about it. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:nice work LT [[User:Bohdan|bd]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::Glad you like it ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

correction made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Glad I could help [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry!==

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. ''':P''' --[[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Intuitive page naming==
Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for '''Antonia''' ... your article is actually about [[Antonia Minor]], who also had a sister named Antonia, [[Antonia Major]]. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called '''Bob''' or '''Smith''' and expecting ''your'' choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

:I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider ''that'' for the future. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

:::If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

<strike>::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)</strike>Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

*Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, B :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

*You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Uribe Human Rights Abuses==
Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --[[User:FreedomandLiberty|FreedomandLiberty]] 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

== Contact.... ==

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Ralph Reed, et. al. ==

*You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== courtesy notice ==

I liked your [[Praetorian guard]] article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your [[Praetorian guard]] guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request ==

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: [[Amoz]]. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== John the Baptist ==

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
:::In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

:::Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

:::"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::I'm sorry, but Mormonism ''isn't'' Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

::As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Empire] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Team_contest/Team_one Here]
Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I would be honored my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit: [[Conservapedia:Team contest|Basis]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Please contact me by my E-Mail. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work. Keep going. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit:

[[Team1:Players]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back... --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Joaquin, both for the "Excellent work" and the "Welcome back" ;-) I have a few things I need to do, but I still intend to add many more contributions before it ends. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work, my friend. Team 2 is not far from us. I think we still have a chance to win. Keep pushing. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

----

We have two articles that are in a good position in Google:

[[Andrew Mellon]] 76 among 142 000.

[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] 14 among 37 500.

Do you think you could help to improve them in order to get a better ranking?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:58, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scotland==
I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== turkey ==

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian Wars ==

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==Falklands==

Hi LearnTogether. I just reworded your update to the Falklands article a bit so that it reads better, let me know if you don't like it. Note that many of the Argentinian casualties were sailors, not soldiers. 655 is the official number, do you have a source that says its called into question? I couldn't find one (after not very long looking, I have to admit). Thanks [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:03, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have a fine edit Feret and I'm glad you added your input. I have no problem with it. The question as to casualties is the source itself - the Argentine government at the time which wildly misled its people as to the course of the war and had a very vested interest to keep the numbers low after losing to Great Britain. It's a bit like trusting Hamas casualty numbers. Peace to you, and may you continue to make many fine edits. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Division by zero ==

You can divide by zero, but the calculation is effectively meaningless as the answer returned is always infinity. This is why calculators and Excel display an error message when asked to perform this function. Hope this helps. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 19:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== 1500 ==

I hope after the Contest you would have 3000. :) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll try my best my friend. ;-) Best wishes to everyone in the contest, but either way Conservapedia wins. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

You need to make a new page for Contest Personal Record. Take a look [[User:Joaquín Martínez/Contest|here]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I already thought of that. You have blocking privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:57, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team page==
Try it now LT; if it still bounces you, yell Joaquin - I'm slipping away for a couple of hours of kip ;) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Fox, you're the man! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I haven't been contributing much lately. I've been very busy with work, family issues and Toastmasters. I would appreciate your input on the new section at the Team 1 contest page. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:28, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have it, and any contributions are appreciated. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Welcome template==
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~~}}</nowiki>

[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Stlphotog ==

[[Lutheran Church]] is also copied from a Wikipedia article. More info is on Aschafly's talk page. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am surprised because it is not especially well written, but thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]]
::He did a rather poor job of concealing his plagiarism; it is partially rephrased or summarized in places. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I've rewritten the article. Hopefully now it is unique to Conservapedia. Thank you again for catching this violation and your efforts on following through. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== request for help ==

Can you help me with the footnote section of [[evolution]]. Right now 1/2 the footnotes are just bare links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry my friend, but that article is protected to people like me. ;-) Best wishes though, it's looking better all the time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:27, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== "The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History." ==

Why not just post the book in its entirety instead of the 81 - and counting - three sentence fragments from it you've posted so far? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll be happy to answer you... when you have taken the time to show that you wish to improve Conservapedia by making 81 new entries of your own. Peace. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
::He was a troll/sock and won't be making ''any'' new entries! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Somehow I didn't think that would be his cup of tea. ;-) Thank you my friend! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==

Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 10:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
==I see==
You're working on the LXX, I started [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], should we be thinking of adding a category such as '''Bible versions'''? [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:I think that's a good idea. Put it as a subcategory under Bible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Go right ahead, I can't even find the list for categories! [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Done ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::That was a good idea. I protected the 2000 election because of walter repeated false changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you my friend. ;-) I was hoping I wouldn't have to block him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:35, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

I don't know how to copy and download pics to Conservapedia. Can you show me how to do it? If I am not able to understand your directions can you download some pictures for me? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==defaultsort==

Thanks for your work default sorting entries! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome Dan. ;-) I kind of came across them by accident, but when I see them I try to clean them up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== I didn't ==

I didn't copy from Wikipedia or any place against policy.--'''[[user:FellowChristian16|Fellow]]Christian[[user_talk:FellowChristian16|16]]''' 23:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Winners ==

Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Congratulations! We won! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did they give any totals my friend? Where can we check them up? Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:13, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Good question...I'll see what I can find and get back to you asap! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:14, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you Deborarh ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Congrats! I just looked at recent changes and it looks like it's NE Patriots night... --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 23:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, you did all the work Tash! As I'm putting in the sorts, I can't believe how much effort you put into filling out bios on so many players! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Renoir:

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==take page v. user page==

When both pages are blank, don't you think you are getting worked up over nothing? Honestly - the user hasn't made any indication of how he wants his castle to be utilized. You're making assumptions for him, which seems to intrude heavily into his autonomy. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 02:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Unless you have been given express permission, one way is right and one is wrong. It's not getting worked up. It's trying to help you understand Conservapedia rules and etiquette. Other wikis are into that sort of trampling each other thing, but here we try to be respectful and civil. I'm sure if he requests his user page to be used, that no one will have a problem with that. Another point that you may wish to consider is to avoid 'ping-pong' conversations, we try to keep the writing on one talk user page. If you had responded to me on your page, I would have seen it just as well with the fuller context. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Categories, Etc. ==

*You might want to check this out: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Wikilinking_of_dates]] I would like your thoughts as well, particularly in regard to the categories and wanted page list, via IM or email, at first, until we build some direction. Perhaps I can even compel you, Aziraphale, BrianCo and Mr. Rayment into a productive chat session! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Block powers? ==

Please take a look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Religion&diff=250801&oldid=250328 this]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for your astute eye. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Not sure if [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Was_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=prev&oldid=250808 this] is a problem, but the user changed another user's comments on a talk page. (I reverted the change, but keep an eye on the guy.) {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Same page, earlier [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AWas_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=250799&oldid=211259 edit] also problematic. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

[[User:MichaelaHunt]] is vandalizing. Could you also protect a few pages for me? [[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]] and [[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]. thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*LT, please refer all requests from PheasantHunter to me, okay? He is very adept at playng the system, and that is exactly what he has been doing. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I'd appreciate it if you brought such gossip and innuendo to me before posting it on other users tal pages. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==My Niger edits==

Just for the record, that was a screw up on my part, not an attempt at vandalism. I meant to end the white house website with .gov, not .org...I had no idea that parody site even existed. As a school librarian, I'm plagued by the white house .com site, which is a porno site. I will be more careful in the future. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T16:00:15Z

PheasantHunter: /* Block powers? */

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a <nowiki>{{speedy</nowiki> template to [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating ''any'' article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or [[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]]), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to [[Roman Empire]]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Note that [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]] has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

== Clinton Revert.... ==

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Reverts]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidemyself=1&limit=600]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Job==

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus ==

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Saint Andrew ==

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)"
complain about [[Andrew]] and [[Philip]] along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Highlighting Links ==

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it.
Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or [[User_talk:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] when you wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=163608&oldid=163593 this]. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== My pleasure ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

== Edit summaries ==

I appreciate this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=170855&oldid=166181 edit], and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Compliment ==
Excellent work on the Rather article.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Global Warming, et.al. ==

You might want to consider this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==
Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on [[Justinian]]? It seems he is someone you would know much about.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sorry! ==

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with you==
The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

What's the problem with my edit to the [[atheism]] page? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - '''Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic'''") 
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br>
(cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) ('''The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence''') 

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Most of those weren't my edits. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==
Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon ==
Hi, I checked out your [[House of David]] article and followed the first link to [[Solomon]]. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article for your attention please==
[[Four Emperors Era]] needs work and it seems like you would know about it. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:nice work LT [[User:Bohdan|bd]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::Glad you like it ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

correction made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Glad I could help [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry!==

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. ''':P''' --[[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Intuitive page naming==
Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for '''Antonia''' ... your article is actually about [[Antonia Minor]], who also had a sister named Antonia, [[Antonia Major]]. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called '''Bob''' or '''Smith''' and expecting ''your'' choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

:I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider ''that'' for the future. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

:::If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

<strike>::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)</strike>Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

*Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, B :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

*You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Uribe Human Rights Abuses==
Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --[[User:FreedomandLiberty|FreedomandLiberty]] 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

== Contact.... ==

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Ralph Reed, et. al. ==

*You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== courtesy notice ==

I liked your [[Praetorian guard]] article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your [[Praetorian guard]] guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request ==

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: [[Amoz]]. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== John the Baptist ==

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
:::In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

:::Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

:::"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::I'm sorry, but Mormonism ''isn't'' Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

::As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Empire] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Team_contest/Team_one Here]
Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I would be honored my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit: [[Conservapedia:Team contest|Basis]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Please contact me by my E-Mail. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work. Keep going. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit:

[[Team1:Players]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back... --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Joaquin, both for the "Excellent work" and the "Welcome back" ;-) I have a few things I need to do, but I still intend to add many more contributions before it ends. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work, my friend. Team 2 is not far from us. I think we still have a chance to win. Keep pushing. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

----

We have two articles that are in a good position in Google:

[[Andrew Mellon]] 76 among 142 000.

[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] 14 among 37 500.

Do you think you could help to improve them in order to get a better ranking?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:58, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scotland==
I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== turkey ==

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian Wars ==

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==Falklands==

Hi LearnTogether. I just reworded your update to the Falklands article a bit so that it reads better, let me know if you don't like it. Note that many of the Argentinian casualties were sailors, not soldiers. 655 is the official number, do you have a source that says its called into question? I couldn't find one (after not very long looking, I have to admit). Thanks [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:03, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have a fine edit Feret and I'm glad you added your input. I have no problem with it. The question as to casualties is the source itself - the Argentine government at the time which wildly misled its people as to the course of the war and had a very vested interest to keep the numbers low after losing to Great Britain. It's a bit like trusting Hamas casualty numbers. Peace to you, and may you continue to make many fine edits. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Division by zero ==

You can divide by zero, but the calculation is effectively meaningless as the answer returned is always infinity. This is why calculators and Excel display an error message when asked to perform this function. Hope this helps. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 19:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== 1500 ==

I hope after the Contest you would have 3000. :) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll try my best my friend. ;-) Best wishes to everyone in the contest, but either way Conservapedia wins. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

You need to make a new page for Contest Personal Record. Take a look [[User:Joaquín Martínez/Contest|here]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I already thought of that. You have blocking privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:57, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team page==
Try it now LT; if it still bounces you, yell Joaquin - I'm slipping away for a couple of hours of kip ;) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Fox, you're the man! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I haven't been contributing much lately. I've been very busy with work, family issues and Toastmasters. I would appreciate your input on the new section at the Team 1 contest page. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:28, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have it, and any contributions are appreciated. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Welcome template==
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~~}}</nowiki>

[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Stlphotog ==

[[Lutheran Church]] is also copied from a Wikipedia article. More info is on Aschafly's talk page. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am surprised because it is not especially well written, but thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]]
::He did a rather poor job of concealing his plagiarism; it is partially rephrased or summarized in places. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I've rewritten the article. Hopefully now it is unique to Conservapedia. Thank you again for catching this violation and your efforts on following through. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== request for help ==

Can you help me with the footnote section of [[evolution]]. Right now 1/2 the footnotes are just bare links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry my friend, but that article is protected to people like me. ;-) Best wishes though, it's looking better all the time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:27, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== "The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History." ==

Why not just post the book in its entirety instead of the 81 - and counting - three sentence fragments from it you've posted so far? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll be happy to answer you... when you have taken the time to show that you wish to improve Conservapedia by making 81 new entries of your own. Peace. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
::He was a troll/sock and won't be making ''any'' new entries! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Somehow I didn't think that would be his cup of tea. ;-) Thank you my friend! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==

Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 10:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
==I see==
You're working on the LXX, I started [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], should we be thinking of adding a category such as '''Bible versions'''? [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:I think that's a good idea. Put it as a subcategory under Bible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Go right ahead, I can't even find the list for categories! [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Done ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::That was a good idea. I protected the 2000 election because of walter repeated false changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you my friend. ;-) I was hoping I wouldn't have to block him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:35, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

I don't know how to copy and download pics to Conservapedia. Can you show me how to do it? If I am not able to understand your directions can you download some pictures for me? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==defaultsort==

Thanks for your work default sorting entries! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome Dan. ;-) I kind of came across them by accident, but when I see them I try to clean them up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== I didn't ==

I didn't copy from Wikipedia or any place against policy.--'''[[user:FellowChristian16|Fellow]]Christian[[user_talk:FellowChristian16|16]]''' 23:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Winners ==

Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Congratulations! We won! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did they give any totals my friend? Where can we check them up? Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:13, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Good question...I'll see what I can find and get back to you asap! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:14, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you Deborarh ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Congrats! I just looked at recent changes and it looks like it's NE Patriots night... --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 23:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, you did all the work Tash! As I'm putting in the sorts, I can't believe how much effort you put into filling out bios on so many players! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Renoir:

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==take page v. user page==

When both pages are blank, don't you think you are getting worked up over nothing? Honestly - the user hasn't made any indication of how he wants his castle to be utilized. You're making assumptions for him, which seems to intrude heavily into his autonomy. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 02:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Unless you have been given express permission, one way is right and one is wrong. It's not getting worked up. It's trying to help you understand Conservapedia rules and etiquette. Other wikis are into that sort of trampling each other thing, but here we try to be respectful and civil. I'm sure if he requests his user page to be used, that no one will have a problem with that. Another point that you may wish to consider is to avoid 'ping-pong' conversations, we try to keep the writing on one talk user page. If you had responded to me on your page, I would have seen it just as well with the fuller context. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Categories, Etc. ==

*You might want to check this out: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Wikilinking_of_dates]] I would like your thoughts as well, particularly in regard to the categories and wanted page list, via IM or email, at first, until we build some direction. Perhaps I can even compel you, Aziraphale, BrianCo and Mr. Rayment into a productive chat session! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Block powers? ==

Please take a look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Religion&diff=250801&oldid=250328 this]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for your astute eye. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Not sure if [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Was_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=prev&oldid=250808 this] is a problem, but the user changed another user's comments on a talk page. (I reverted the change, but keep an eye on the guy.) {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Same page, earlier [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AWas_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=250799&oldid=211259 edit] also problematic. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

[[User:MichaelaHunt]] is vandalizing. Could you also protect a few pages for me? [[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]] and [[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]. thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*LT, please refer all requests from PheasantHunter to me, okay? He is very adept at playng the system, and that is exactly what he has been doing. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'd appreciate it if you brought such gossip and innuendo to me before posting it on other users tal pages. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==My Niger edits==

Just for the record, that was a screw up on my part, not an attempt at vandalism. I meant to end the white house website with .gov, not .org...I had no idea that parody site even existed. As a school librarian, I'm plagued by the white house .com site, which is a porno site. I will be more careful in the future. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T06:37:09Z

PheasantHunter: /* Block powers? */

Talk:God

2007-07-26T06:29:33Z

PheasantHunter: /* other views of god */ Previous comment left by Nobodyyouareawareof

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

User talk:Fluidchameleon

2007-07-26T06:28:00Z

PheasantHunter:

<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''

Hello, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's Guide]] as soon as you can.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{tl|Useful links}}" on the page.

Thanks for reading, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}!

:{{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{clear}}</div>

Please read the above before posting. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Fluidchameleon

2007-07-26T06:27:38Z

PheasantHunter: welcome

{{subst:welcom|sig={{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)}}

Please read the above before posting. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T06:24:37Z

PheasantHunter: /* Block powers? */

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T06:23:04Z

PheasantHunter: /* Block powers? */ Another (and thanks)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-07-26T06:20:42Z

PheasantHunter: DO NOT CHANGE OTHER USER'S COMMENTS

{{debate}}

==YES==

Do you mean the countless millions of dead ones or the handful who survived and were put into the "ghettos" we like to call "reservations?"--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:05, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::I sincerly hope that the above opinion is not serious, and if it is, that it is not the opinion of the majority of contributors on this site. What a shame.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 19:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm hopeing this is a Devils advocate posting or one based on sheerignorance of history and contemporary life in Indian Country, because it is one of the most racist, bigotted things I've read in a long time. Maybe this is what the next round of media articles about Conservapedia will focus on. I can see the headlies now. "New Wiki becomes bastion of skinheads and American Nazis"--[[User:Third Day|Third Day]] 09:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see how one could argue otherwise. The Europeans taught the Indians that it was wrong to kill each other in the name of their false gods, and taught them Christianity. It is unfortunate that many were killed by diseases, but at least their souls were saved. And I agree with Conservateur's point that the whites improved their living conditions immensely. [[User:JBT|JBT]] 02:36, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

^
I FIND YOU INTOLERANT AND HATE YOU FOR IT

::JBT, who are you to say whose gods are false and whose gods are true? If people who follow different gods, and people who disbelieve in all gods would just agree to disagree then we'd all be a lot happier! --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I thought "scalping" was common knowledge. Do you really need me to give a source for the practice? Torture was so common among some tribes that it is became a mark of courage to endure it with no outcry. Maybe the 'courage' thing needs a reference, but *sheesh* can't you just go to Google when someone makes a point in a debate?

::Are we airing our different points of view to find out how others think, or do we imagine a huge audience is watching to see who wins? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

One almost does not know where to begin. As the above poster noted, it is hard to fathom why this question is even asked in 2007. Nervertheless, I will try to address some of the misconceptions I see above. Most native peoples did not practice human sacrifice. As for the person above who states that jative land was not stolen, I agree with the poster who challenged him to provide sources. I noticed that none were forthcoming. As for not uniting in the face of European invasion, you have to remember that Native Americans viewed themsleves as over 500 different nations. Would France, Spain, et. al. have united in the face of an invasion? I also wish to address the remark concering scalping. Around 1980 or so, James Axtell published an article in the William and Mary Quarterly called "The Unkindest Cut" that showed that scalping was a European innovation. European officals paid Indians a bounty for each enemy scalp they brought in. In the eighteenth century, on the Carolina frontier, colonists also collected these bounties. So, who really is the "savage" here? I do not agree with the rather forceful tone of davyjones, but posters on Conservapedia may want to consider this: Some of the things they post can be used against conservatives. If you post something that could be made out to sound "stupid" or "racist," I assure you, there is someone out there who will use it that way. Since what we want is to win people to the conservative side, think before you post. I'm not saying do not say what is on your mind, but think how it can boomarang on conservatives.--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 12:35, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's the second time you've inserted that nonsense:
:*"Historical records, archaeology, and other sciences strongly indicate the practice [of scalping] originated among certain Native American tribes." [http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html]

Hardly nonsense, and this is a good opportunity to point out the limitations of relying on “scholarship” that appears on the internet. The quote you cite from Bray’s article uses the Axtell article (that Lobo refers to above) as its support. There is only one problem. The Axtell article does not support Bray’s contention. The rest of Bray’s article lists scalping incidents that occurred during the French and Indian War which occurred two and half centuries after initial contact between Europeans and Native people. It would really be a good idea to check the veracity of your sources. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 11:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was the Roman colonization of Europe good for the native people?==
Maybe yes or maybe no. The effect was that Europe became Roman just as Americans became westernized. We will never know, in both cases.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:29, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Euro Colonization of the Americas: NO ==
I say no, it was not good for the native peoples. Quite simply because their numbers and identity as a seperate peoples are reduced to almost obscurity. No, it was not good for them. Even if they may have learned certain cultural and civil refinements from the Europeans, they have still been reduced to almost non-existence through disease, war, depletion of their resources, and cultural assimilation and inter-breeding. I'm not giving a good/bad opinion on this so please do not misconstrue it. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== YES/NO ==

i'm gonna ride the fence, yes for those alive today, no for those that died along the way... :)
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:30, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Learn together

2007-07-26T06:19:28Z

PheasantHunter: Block powers?

User talk:Urmum

2007-07-26T06:18:52Z

PheasantHunter: Well, good bye

<div style="background: #ffc; width:95%; border: 1px solid blue; padding:0.5em;">
{{useful links|background=off|float=right}}
'''<big>Welcome!</big>'''

Hello, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}, and '''''welcome''''' to [[Conservapedia]]!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's Guide]] as soon as you can.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{tl|Useful links}}" on the page.

Thanks for reading, {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}!

:{{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:13, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{clear}}</div>

== Well, good bye ==

Well, good bye. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Religion&diff=250801&oldid=250328 this] wasn't smart. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Religion

2007-07-26T06:18:10Z

PheasantHunter: rv

'''Religion''' is a system of belief and practices shared by a community that attempts to answer the ultimate questions of life and death, and, in doing so, goes beyond the verifiable. Religions frequently involve [[supernatural]] elements such as [[gods and goddesses]], [[angels]] and [[demons]], ancestors, transmigratory souls, and [[heaven]], [[purgatory]] and [[hell]]. Developed religions generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, a set of individual and communal practices. Religion played a major role in all human societies prior to the twentieth century. It is a core belief of [[conservatives]] that the recent decline in religious observation are a key source of the undermining of social and moral order.

[[Evangelicals]] disparage the term "religion" as a system of works by which human beings attempt to approach [[God]] without a personal relationship with [[Jesus Christ]]. According to them, for the person who is born again, religion can only interfere and distract from that prayerful union.

== Religions ==

* [[Animism]]
* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Buddhism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Juche]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Scientology]]
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shintoism]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]
* [[Wicca]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]], a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods
* [[Agnostic]], can't make one's mind up about the existence of a god or gods
*[[Naturalistic religions]]
*[[Secular Humanism]], an approach to moral philosophy
*[[World Religions by Number of Followers]]
*[[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]], a parody of religion.

[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:God

2007-07-26T06:17:39Z

PheasantHunter: /* other views of god */ sup

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

Talk:God

2007-07-26T06:17:22Z

PheasantHunter: /* other views of god */

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Prove your "God" exists, then we'll talk. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 09:42, 22 March 2007

::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

User talk:Urmum

2007-07-26T06:13:05Z

PheasantHunter: New page: {{subst:welcome|sig=~~~~}}

User talk:Nobodyyouareawareof

2007-07-26T06:11:28Z

PheasantHunter: Please sign your talk page contributions

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)}}
I'm very tempted to ban you for [[Christianity and science]], but I'm not sure whether it is intended as a parody or you really believe it. I'm also very tempted to delete the article outright, but it might be salvagable. Your response might influence my decisions on those two issues. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please sign your talk page contributions ==

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by putting four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your contribution. Also, just an FYI, but I reverted one of your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=School_prayer&diff=250787&oldid=250570 edits] to [[School prayer]]. You may be correct or incorrect, but I thought it was questionable. Could you provide a source for it? Of course, you could just revert my revert, and others more familiar with the issue of school prayer will probably look into it. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:11, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

School prayer

2007-07-26T06:08:28Z

PheasantHunter: rv questionable edit; please provide source (and explain what you mean by "it")

The issue of prayer in U.S. public schools has been a divisive one since the 1960s. Some critics of the practice have stated (or hinted) that letting government-paid teachers lead students in prayer is tantamount to an [[establishment of religion]].

James Valles, Jr.

2007-07-26T05:50:22Z

PheasantHunter: Default sort

'''James Valles, Jr.''' does research in experimental condensed matter [[physics]], in the areas of: superconductivity; electron correlation effects in disordered metals and nanostructures; and in using magnetic fields as a new tool for cell biology and biopolymerization.

Biography

Professor Valles joined the faculty at [[Brown University]] in 1992. Prior to this he was an Assistant Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon from 1989 to 1992 and a postdoctoral member of the technical staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1987 to 1989. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts in 1988 and his Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth College in 1981. He is the recipient of an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship.
Interests

Valles' group performs research in two distinct areas: low temperature condensed matter physics and biological physics.

The condensed matter physics research focuses on uncovering and exploring the properties of the possible phases, such as superconducting, insulating, or magnetic, that metals assume at very low temperatures. Which phase emerges in a given system can be determined by a subtle interplay of its geometry, its microscopic structure and whether or not it is in a [[magnetic field]]. Most recently, Valles has focused on films of metals that are so thin that they exhibit two dimensional properties. Some of these come with their own nanostructure, while others are patterned with features on the scale of nanometers. The specific topics that this research addresses are the two dimensional superconductor to insulator and superconductor to metal transitions, localization phenomena, proximity effects in mesoscopic systems, and the physics of thin film growth on low temperature and nanostructured substrates.

Biological physics work in the Valles lab has been directed at developing the use of intense, static magnetic fields as a means of manipulating biological systems. They have shown that cell division in frog eggs, the swimming of microorganisms, and biopolymerization phenomena can be modified and investigated with static magnetic fields.

Awards

1981 Magna Cum Laude, Dartmouth College
1982-84 Graduate Fellow, University of Massachusetts
1986-87 IBM Graduate Fellow
1990-92 Alfred P. Sloan Fellow
1993 Elected to Sigma Xi
Affiliations

American Physical Society Member
American Association for the Advancement of Science Member
Funded Research

1990-92 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship

1991-94 National Science Foundation, "Electron Tunneling Studies of Ultrathin Normal Metal Films"

1991-94 Office of Naval Research, "Electron Tunneling Studies of Ultrathin Films Near the Metal Insulator Transition"

1995-98 Office of Naval Research, "Ballistic Electron-Emission Microscopy Studies of High Tc Superconductor Normal Metal Interfaces"

1995-98 National Science Foundation, "Ultra Low Temperature Transport and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Studies of Quench Condensed Films"

1997-98 - Salomon Faculty Research Award with Professor K. Mowry -

1998-00 – National Science Foundation, "Tunneling and Transport Studies of Ultrathin Films of Metals and Superconductors"

1999-00 – National Science Foundation, "Manipulation of Cell Division with Static Magnetic Fields"

2002-04 – National Science Foundation, "Quantum Phase Transitions in Nanostructured Superconductors in 2D"

2001-05- NASA, "Magnetic Field Gradient Levitation System for Physics and Biophysics"

2004-2007 NASA, "Microscopic Studies of Gravi-Sensitive Microtubule Assembly in Simulated Variable Gravity Conditions", co-PI with Professor Jay Tang

2005 Jet Propulsion Laboratory "Investigations of the Adaptation of Euglena to Changes in a Simulated Gravity Environment"

2006-2009 National Science Foundation, "Vortices and Quasiparticles in Superconducting Films in Small Order Parameter Amplitude Limit" [http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Physics/people/facultypage.php?id=1106969921]

[[category:physicists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Valles Jr., James}}

Erwin Schroedinger

2007-07-26T05:49:20Z

PheasantHunter: defaultsort, and removed category cats

'''Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schroedinger''' (August 12, 1887 - January 4, 1961) was an Austrian physicist noted for his contributions to [[quantum mechanics]]. His major achievement the [[Schroedinger Equation]], which relates the time-space dependence of quantum mechanical systems, earned him the [[Nobel Prize]] for [[Physics]] in 1933. He is also remembered for his humorous thought experiment, [[Schroedinger's Cat]].

[[category:physicists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schroedinger, Erwin}}

Talk:Medical marijuana

2007-07-26T05:38:34Z

PheasantHunter:

Your article is extremely biased, medical marijuana shows great promise for such ailments such as cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, MS, even alzheimer's as well as other ailments. Of course it is not a cure, but offers treatment and relief. When the patient does use medical marijuana for their ailment they do not feel an euphoria, just like when you take pain medicine when you really need it. Of course people are going to abuse the system but that is not a reason to criminalize an alternative medicine for those who really need it. Do you really want the government to make your health and medicinal choices for you, that should be between you and your doctor.
:I don't know much about this topic. But if you have some good sources, why not read up on it and improve the article? {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Radio

2007-07-26T05:33:32Z

PheasantHunter: fixing link

'''Radio''' is the branch of telecommunication that involves the transmission of [[electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] waves through space.

[[James Clerk Maxwell|James C. Maxwell]] developed the first radio-wave theory in 1864. He proved, mathematically at least, that if an [[electricity|electrical]] interruption is of short distance from the point at which it occurred, there would be passage of electrical current due to "some sort of waves that move at the speed of light", in which the electromagnetic energy would travel.

Radio signals are made up of two kinds of waves: “audio” (or sound) waves represent the sounds being sent to the audience and radio frequency waves travel with these sound waves to "carry" them to radios in homes and car, for example. All waves have three parts: a wavelength, an amplitude and a frequency. Each of these parts can be changed to carry information.

== AM Radio ==

AM stands for "Amplitude Modulation", which refers to the means of encoding the audio signal on the carrier frequency. In many countries, AM radio stations are known as "mediumwave" (MW) stations. AM stations are also sometimes referred to as "standard broadcast stations", since AM was the was the first form used to transmit broadcast radio signals to the public. Stereophonic AM broadcasting in the USA uses the C-Quam system of encoding the stereo signal. This system has been the official standard since 1993. AM radio can develop problems with interference. This makes it hard to hear the radio show. Interference can be caused by many sources. For example, sparks discharge when a car is started, in electric motors in all sorts of electrical appliances, and even lightning and [[Sun Spots]], all of these things can produce interference to AM radio. There is a lot of background noise that changes the amplitude of the radio wave signal. This creates the random crackling noises call static. <ref>Federal Communications Commission - FCC.[[http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/main/am.html]]</ref>

== FM Radio ==

FM stands for “frequency modulation”- a type of radio transmission, the frequency of the combined waves change to reproduce the audio signal. For example, higher frequency is associated with the peak amplitude in the audio wave. FM waves do not have a problem with interference because the noise background does not modify the radio wave frequency. In addition FM waves give better sound reproduction. FM radio stations all transmit in a band between 88 megahertz (millions of cycles per second) and 108 megahertz. The band is divided into 100 channels, each 200 kHz (0.2 MHz) wide. The center frequency is located at 1/2 the bandwidth of the FM Channel, or 100 kHz (0.1 MHz) up from the lower end of the channel. For example, the center frequency for Channel 201 (the first FM channel) is 88.0 MHz + 0.1 MHz = 88.1 MHz. So there can be a station at 88.1 megahertz, 88.3 megahertz, 88.5 megahertz, and so on. The 200-kilohertz spacing, and the fact that they center on odd numbers is completely arbitrary and was decided by the FCC. In Europe, the FM stations are spaced 100 kilohertz apart instead of 200 kilohertz apart, and they can end on even or odd numbers.
<ref>Federal Communications Commission - FCC.[[http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/main/am.html]]</ref>

== Shortwave Radio ==

From a purely technical point of view, shortwave radio refers to those frequencies between 3 and 30 MHz. Their main characteristic is their ability to "propagate" (travel) for long distances, making possible such worldwide communications as international broadcasting and coordination of long-distance shipping.

From a social point of view, shortwave radio is a way to find out what the rest of the world thinks is important. Many countries broadcast to the world in English, making it easy to find out what a given country's position is on those things it finds important. Shortwave radio can also provide a way to eavesdrop on the everyday workings of international politics and commerce in distant lands.

== References: ==

<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Technology]]
[[Category: Telecommunications]]

Maxwell's Equations

2007-07-26T05:32:54Z

PheasantHunter: avoiding redirect

'''Maxwell's Equations''', formulated around 1861 by [[James Clerk Maxwell]] describe the interrelation between electric and magnetic fields.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>They were a synthesis of what was known about electricity and magnetism, particularly building on the work of [[Michael Faraday]], [[C. A. Coulomb|Charles-Augustin Coulomb]], [[Andre-Marie Ampere]], and others. These equations predicted the existence of [[Electromagnetic wave]]s, giving them properties that were recognized to be properties of light, leading to the (correct) realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. Other forms of electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, were not known at the time, but were subsequently demonstrated by [[Heinrich Hertz]] in 1888. These equations are considered to be among the most elegant edifices of mathematical physics.

Maxwell's equations serve many purposes and take many forms. On the one hand, they are used in the solution of actual real-world problems of electromagnetic fields and radiation. On the other hand, they are the subject of admiration for their elegance. There are many T-shirts, typically obtainable on college campuses, sporting various forms of these equations.

What follows is a survey of the various forms that these equations take, beginning with the most utilitarian and progressing to the most elegant. Which form you prefer depends on your scientific outlook, and perhaps your taste in T-shirts. The various <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}</math> and <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E}</math> symbols appearing in some of the equations are the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] operators, respectively.

They are usually formulated as four equations (but later we will see some particularly elegant versions with only two), and the equations are usually expressed in ''differential form'', that is, as [[Partial Differential Equations]] involving the divergence and curl operators. They can also be expressed with integrals. They are often expressed in terms of four vector fields: E, B, D, and H, though the simpler forms use only E and B.

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! differential form
! integral form
|-
| Coulomb's law of electrostatics, or [[Gauss's Law]]:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Absence of magnetic monopoles:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law, or the Biot-Savart Law, plus displacement current:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

In these, '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''D''' denotes the ''electric displacement field'', and '''H''' denotes the ''magnetic field strength'' or ''auxiliary field''. '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

==Integral Form==
The integral forms can be seen to be equivalent to the differential forms through the use of the general [[Stoke%27s Theorem]]. The form known as ''Gauss's Theorem'' (k=3) takes care of the equations involving the divergence, and the form commonly known as just ''Stokes' Theorem'' (k=2) takes care of those involving the curl.

We will say nothing further about the equations in integral form. The differential versions are the "real" Maxwell equations.

==What the Four Equations mean==
===Coulomb's Law===
The first equation is just [[C. A. Coulomb|Coulomb]]'s law of electrostatics, manipulated very elegantly (as usual) by [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]] and [[Gauss]]. Coulomb's law simply says that the electric force between two charged particles acts in the direction of the line between them, is repelling if they have like charges and attracting if unlike, is proportional to the product of the charges, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
:<math>F = \frac{q_1 q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>

In this case, the constant defining the strength of the electric force is <math>4 \pi \epsilon</math> in the denominator. More about that presently.

In [[International_System_of_Units|SI units]] the charges are measured in [[International_System_of_Units#Coulomb|Coulombs]], the force in [[International_System_of_Units#Newton|Newtons]], the distance in [[International_System_of_Units#Meter|Meters]], and the value of <math>\epsilon</math> is <math>8.854 \times 10^{-12}</math> Coulombs2 per Newton meter2, or [[International_System_of_Units#Farad|Farads]] per meter.

Michael Faraday reformulated the electric and magnetic forces in terms of ''fields'' He said that what was really happening was that each charge was creating an electric field (called E) that acted on the other charge. The field created by the charge q1, as observed at distance d, is
:<math>E = \frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>
and points directly outward from that charge, in all directions. The force felt by charge q2 is
:<math>F = q_2 E</math>

Now consider a sphere of radius d with the charge at the center. If <math>\rho</math> is the charge density in Coulombs per cubic meter (Maxwell's equations are in terms of densities), the total charge in some volume is the integral, over that volume, of <math>\rho</math>.

So we have
:<math>q = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Now the field at the surface of the sphere is
:<math>\frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>, or <math>\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2} \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
That field is directly outward, perpendicular to the sphere's surface, and is uniform over the surface. The integral of the field over the surface is <math>4 \pi d^2</math> times that (the surface area of the sphere is <math>4 \pi d^2</math>; this is why we have the pesky factor of <math>4 \pi</math> in various formulas; remember that d is the distance, and hence is the sphere's ''radius'', not its diameter), so
:<math>\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V = \oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A}</math>
But, by Gauss's Theorem,
:<math>\oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V</math>
So
:<math>\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V = \int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Since this is true for any volume, we have
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}</math>
Now D = <math>\epsilon\ E</math> in the straightforward case (more about that later), so
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
===Absence of Magnetic Monopoles===
The second of the equations is just like the first, but for the magnetic field. The divergence of B must be the spatial density of magnetic monopoles. Since they have never been observed (though various Grand Unified Theories might allow for them), the value is zero.

This wasn't formulated initially in terms of monopoles, but was actually a statement that magnetic "lines of force" (the lines that intuitively describe the field) never end. They just circulate around various conductors carrying electric current. In contrast to this, lines of the electric field can be thought to "begin" and "end" on charged particles.
===Faraday's Law===
The third equation contains the result of Faraday's experiments with "electromagnetic induction"—a changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and that electric field circulates around the area experiencing the change in total magnetic flux. (Remember that the curl operator measures the extent to which a vector field runs in circles.) We won't go into the details of his experiments, except to note that he discovered that moving a coil of wire (a loop to pick up a circulating electric field) through a magnetic field (for example, by putting it on a shaft and turning it) led to the invention of electric generators, and hence made a major contribution to the industrialization of the world. Not bad for a theoretician.

==Other Formulations==
In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the Faraday tensor.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

James Maxwell

2007-07-26T05:31:48Z

PheasantHunter: Article should go here...(moved from James Maxwell)

[[Image:Hgter6754.png|right|thumb]]
'''James Clerk Maxwell''' (1831-1879) was an Scottish-born physicist who advanced the theory of [[electricity]] and [[magnetism]], and also the kinetic theory of gases.

In his youth, Maxwell enjoyed [[geometry]], and wrote a paper on [[ellipse]]s at the age of 14. While he was not the top student in his class in mathematics, he continued his geometric approach and applied it with great success to [[physics]]. Maxwell is considered one of the greatest physicists ever.

From the way in which changes in a [[magnetic field]] produce electric fields, and the way in which changes in electric fields produced magnetic fields, Maxwell deduced a set of equations that describe them, [[Maxwell's Equations]], in 1861. The equations predicted the possibility of electromagnetic waves. Other scientists looked for and detected these waves, which led both to the development of radio communication and to the discovery that light is a kind of [[electromagnetic wave]].

He also invented [[Maxwell's demon]] as a demonstration of the impossibility of [[perpetual motion]].

==Quotations==
Maxwell wrote:
:No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies [[continuous change]], and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural. <ref>http://www.sonnetusa.com/bio/maxbio.pdf</ref>

:Natural causes, as we know, are at work, which tend to modify, if they do not at length destroy, all the arrangements and dimensions of the earth and the whole solar system. But though in the course of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built—the foundation-stones of the material universe—remain unbroken and unworn. They continue this day as they were created—perfect in number and measure and weight; and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are [361] essential constituents of the image of Him who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist. [ibid]

He also wrote:
:The true logic of this world is in the calculus of probabilities. <ref>http://www.gluegrant.org/cam.htm</ref>

and

:The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter.<ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_only_laws_of_matter_are_those_that_our_minds/323604.html</ref>

These quotations may be offered up in support of the idea that Maxwell was opposed to the theory of evolution, which was first made available to the world at the time. It should be noted, though, that biology was neither Maxwell's area of expertise, nor was evolution developed as a full scientific field at the time these comments were made.
==Bibliography==

Lewis Campbell and William Garnett, ''The Life of James Clerk Maxwell'',
London, Macmillan, 1882
*[http://www.sonnetusa.com/bio/maxbio.pdf]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Physicists]]

Talk:Margaret Sanger

2007-07-26T05:22:29Z

PheasantHunter: Legacy

Michael Crichton, is an author of fiction and a non-practicing MD—is he really a proper source for historical quotes? I think not. I would, therefore, argue in favor of removing the last paragraph from this page unless better sourcing for these quotes can be found.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's the kind of censorship I came here to avoid. Wikipedians made the same argument, but I don't buy it.

:On what grounds do you reject the quote?
:#Writing fiction discredits all non-fiction written by an author.
:#*Bio-chemist (and science fiction author) [[Isaac Asimov]] wrote a ''History of Chemistry'' which I read as a teen. Bad source, right?
:#When an MD stops practicing or never even starts, he forgets everything he learned at university and his degree becomes worthless.

:In your reply, please refer to the numbered list above. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am not censoring anything – Michael Crichton’s views are appropriate to place on his entry, I am simply suggesting he is not a good source for Margaret Sanger’s views, I didn’t delete the quote I simply asked that someone justify Crichton as a source or that a better source for the quote be found or that the quote be removed. So please do not accuse me of censorship. If I were a censor I would have simply deleted the quote and moved on.
::As to your points I do not reject the quote for either of the reasons you suggest that I am rejecting the quotes. I am saying the two qualifications Chichton has are popular fiction author and non-practicing MD—this means that he would be a good source on writing, the publishing industry, how to provide publicity for a book (etc.), and he would be a good source for those things one would learn in earning an MD during the time period he was earning his MD (this rules out, for example, modern practice in dealing with premature births as that technology has greatly changed since he earned his degree—but does not rule out how to set a broken arm). What Sanger said is not in his area of expertise, not in either of them.
::So I am rejecting the quote for reason number 3 (not 1 or 2—both of which, you are quite right are bad reasons to reject a statement):
:::3. What Margaret Sanger said is not in Michael Chrichton’s field of expertise and he, therefore, is not a proper source for what she said.
::If she said what Chrichton claims she did a better source can be found, if a better source cannot be found it should be removed. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your remarks. Returning the favor, let me point out that I do not consider you a "censor" - I was perhaps unclear about that. I meant that removing the quote 'would be' censorship.

I appreciate you listing your grounds for removal of this passage:

:According to [[Michael Crichton]], Sanger was a supporter of [[eugenics]]. He quotes her as having said, "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles." <ref>http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html</ref>
Crichton also writes that 'She spoke of the burden of caring for "this dead weight of human waste."' <ref>http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/index.html</ref>

But "not in Michael Chrichton’s field of expertise" doesn't seem like a good enough reason. Everything in the passage is easily checked. Would you like to dig into this matter, and tell us whether Crichton was right and/or whether I've cited him properly?

The points in question are:
#Was [[Margaret Sanger]] a supporter of [[eugenics]]?
#Did she say "Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is no greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles."?
#*And is this quote taken in context or [[out of context]]?

If you've got time, we could sure use your help on this. It could even turn into a guideline on [[Use of quoted material]]. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

#That [[Margaret Sanger]]

:Thank you for the reply and the clarification.
:I’ll take a stab at researching these quotes, but I want to suggest that you are misplacing the burden of proof. If you (or anyone else) is going to say that someone said, “X”, then the burden to prove that the person did indeed say “X” should be on the person making the claim. To meet this burden I would suggest that the person asserting the quote should have to point to an eyewitness account, a text written or signed by the person in question, a newspaper report, a history text, or some other reliable source for historical information. I think that is the standard that should be applied to all quotations.
:I worry that a more relaxed standard—like the one you are proposing here (I take it that you are suggesting that so long as I can find a person (or possibly a person who has some degree of education or a person who has an easily recognized name—I’m not sure why exactly you would accept Chrichton’s authority here) who attributes the quote to the person in question, it is acceptably posted to their article) will lead to bad information being posted in articles.
:The standard I am proposing is that sources have to be roughly what they would have to be if a person were writing their addition to the article as part of a college (or even a high school—assuming the high school is sufficiently strict) paper—a source used as a reference has to be reliable either by virtue of expertise or by virtue of it being an eyewitness account (or in the case of some newspaper articles a second hand eyewitness account). I’m not sure what standard you are proposing, but I would be very interested to know what exactly it is and why you think it is superior. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::A quick search finds the first quote attributed to Herbert Spencer here <ref>http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/LeBon/LeBon_1899/LeBon_1899_24.html</ref>. A bit more reaserch finds it here <ref>http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html</ref> as part of an epigram to a chapter of a book Sanger wrote. So, I would argue that it is absolutely out of contex. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== [[:Category:Abortion]] ==

I'm not 100% sure why this article was in [[:Category:Abortion]]. She didn't campaign for abortion in her lifetime, neither of the groups she founded supported abortion until well after she left them, and the only time she felt the need to comment on abortion was in part of campaigning against suppressing birth control (with comments along the lines of "If birth control were available mothers wouldn't have to risk their lives getting abortions" and so on).

I looked for categories for activists, eugenicists, birth control, or feminists, and found bupkis. Those seem like the most likely candidates. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Margaret Sanger founded what became Planned Paranthood, supported murdering infants in large families, argued that the African Race should be exterminated, and much of what she wanted is being worked on via planned parenthood. She is a very important figure in the history of abortion. Google returns 100K+ hits for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Margaret+Sanger%22++%2Babortion +"Margaret Sanger" +abortion]. Yeah, I see the first link is wikipedia apologetics Sanger vis-a-vis abortion, but this is conservapedia. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:14, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Can you help me out with some references to show that she argued for the legalization or legitimization of abortion, or that she advocated for the extermination of the African race? AFAICT, she argued for the marginalization and sterilization of southern and eastern European immigrants to the US, and subscribed to the then-universal school of thought that abortion was an unqualified evil. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, those links are particularly unhelpful. Wikipedia is vague and mealymouthed (par for the course), there's lots of useless partisan frothing at the mouth on both sides, and there are lots of off-hand (unsourced, argh!) references to her being galvanized by the evils of abortion (again making it hard to tell between partisan frothing at the mouth and substance). *sigh* [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0057.html Angry White Female: Margaret Sanger's Race of Thoroughbreds], going to add it now. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::::That source doesn't mention that she had any feelings on abortion, although it's helpful on her specific racial feelings. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

In fact, Sanger herself on abortion:

<blockquote>To force poor mothers to resort to this dangerous and healthdestroying method of curtailing their families is cruel, wicked, and heartless, and it is often the mothers who care most about the welfare of their children who are willing to undergo any pain or risk to prevent the coming of infants for whom they cannot properly care.</blockquote>

This is something she wrote for the Woman Citizen in 1924, and is available [http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_sanger_1924.htm here].

I'm having trouble seeing her as an abortion advocate, here. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*'''Work together well, and in harmony!''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:She was an infanticide advocate. She founded what became planned parenthood, one of the if not the largest abortion provider in the U.S.. More than 10,000,000 African American fetuses (read: infants) have been aborted thanks to planned parenthood. Anyway, have at the article, I'll be back tomorrow. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::She founded the American Birth Control League, which was folded into the National Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood). (Saying she founded Planned Parenthood is just factually wrong, in this case. She was heavily involved in its early days, but her organization was actually subsumed by PP.) Planned Parenthood didn't perform any abortions until after Sanger's death; the Supreme Court didn't even strike down laws prohibiting contraceptive use by married couples until shortly before her death.

::She was a sick person, and had some extremist, repulsive views. Let's try our best to stick to attributing to her the views she actually held, instead of the views held by those she associated with, though. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 02:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>These unwanted pregnancies often provoke the crime of abortion, or alternatively multiply the number of child-workers and lower the standard of living.</blockquote>
:- Sanger in ''The Pivot of Civilization''

<blockquote>I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.</blockquote>
:- Sanger in ''Woman and the New Race'' (''Woman and the New Race'' has more on how to combat abortion, with an entire chapter advocating contraceptives as a means to eliminate abortion.)

How are these the words of an abortion advocate? :/ [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 02:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sanger and Abortion ==

Some seem to be suggesting that the link between Sanger and abortion is tenuous. Let's review:

*Supported infanticide (read: ex post facto abortions)
*Founded what became Planned Parenthood (a leading abortion provider)

The link between Sanger and abortion is strong. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:59, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> I was hoping that we could avoid shrillness here. She argued for infanticide, and if we were going to add a category for advocates of infanticide, I wouldn't (based on what I've read, I'm still digging) oppose it. She drew a distinction between abortion and infanticide, and opposed abortion.

:As for founding Planned Parenthood (which she didn't, but that's quibbling, since she was one of its defining voices in its early years), lots of organizations become something other than what their founders want them to be. AFAICT from what sources I've read (and, please, I'd love to see some better info on her view of abortion post-1930) Planned Parenthood began dealing with abortion after her death. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 02:07, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'll do some digging, but your replies sound a lot like "Muhammad did not support Jihad" (with apologies to those of the Islam faith). {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm merely cautioning against painting an organization's founder with the anachronistic views of the organization. Think of how silly it would be to put [[:Category:Opponents of same-sex marriage]] to [[John C. Frémont]] or [[:Category:Opponents to slavery]] to [[George W. Bush]]. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 02:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You know, you say that she's an abortion advocate because she founded Planned Parenthood. When she founded the American Birth Control League, she stated its founding principles in ''The Pivot of Civilization'', which is happily available on [http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/8/1689/1689.txt Project Gutenberg]. An excerpt from these principles, emphasis added:

<blockquote>
In addition to this grave evil we witness the appalling waste of women's health and women's lives by too frequent pregnancies. '''These unwanted pregnancies often provoke the crime of abortion''', or alternatively multiply the number of child-workers and lower the standard of living.
</blockquote>

In her own words, Sanger argued for birth control as a way to prevent both uncontrolled population growth and abortion. Her single admirable trait was arguing for birth control as a means for a couple to manage the growth of their family.

She was a racist and a eugenicist, not an admirable person at all. But let us be precise in describing her views and goals, instead of throwing up our hands and ascribing all vaguely-related evils to her. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 02:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*I know both of you have worked with far more difficult people than each other (me for instance)! I am rooting for you both! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Margaret_Sanger&diff=250575&oldid=250572 This] is exactly what I'm talking about when I'm saying we need to avoid shrill sources and tenuous links. If you want to decry the evils of Planned Parenthood and abortion, [[Planned Parenthood|this article]] and [[abortion|this article]] are the place to do it. Sanger devoted wanted to replace abortion with birth control entirely, and saw it as an unqualified evil. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== People With Black Skin..... ==

I believe it almost universally acceptable to refer to them as "Blacks", African-Americans and people of African descent. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I agree. One thing that I've wondered is why it's OK to call someone, "a person of color" but not OK to call them a "colored person"? It's the bizarre process of keeping up with labels. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Well, yes...it will drive you mad if one attempts to keep up with current conventions, or inaccurate ones! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== The Hope Clinic reference and the "propaganized" version of the lead ==

[http://www.hopeclinic.com/AbortionHistory.htm Hope Clinic]'s history of abortion is not a useful reference for this article. In particular, they even get the names of things wrong:

"1942 – Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Federation of America becomes Planned Parenthood Federation of America."

There was no Birth Control Federation of America. The ''National'' Birth Control ''League'' was founded by Mary Ware Dennett in 1915. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which folded into the NBCL to make a single group that was variously called the NBCL or ABCL until 1942, when it becomes Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

We need to be very careful about using non-historical sources - particularly the many shrill, partisan sources on both sides - in this article. There's a tendency for pro-choice people to to say "She supported legalization of birth control, so she's a champion of reproductive rights!" as well as this pro-life tendency to say "She was a racist and founded Planned Parenthood, she's a horrible babykilling monster!" when neither side is right.

Additionally, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Margaret_Sanger&oldid=249661 this version] of the lead doesn't mention her nationality, doesn't mention her eugenics beliefs until halfway in, and uses the loaded and inaccurate term "propaganized." Near as I can tell, she just came out and said that non-white races were inferior and should be marginalized because she felt they were inferior. Arguing for a hateful, ugly idea isn't propaganda automatically. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:<s>AManInBlack, you seem to be gaming the system, attempting to marginalize Sanger's infamy, while promoting aspects (birth control) that make Sanger a liberal hero. This is conservapedia, and Sanger did start what became planned parenthood. And emphasizing this, as is emphasized in conservative circles, makes the article distinctly consrvative. Now, if you have a site that says Sanger did not start what became planned parenthood, I'm interested. But please stop with the liberal spin.
:You may have other valid points, but they do not provide cover for attempting to diminish the role of Sanger in the "evolution" of the legalization of abortion. Unless you have a site that states Sanger did not start what became planned parenthood, do not mingle the liberal bias with your other edits (which I assume are productive).</s>{{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 22:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I retract the above, but still need to add a few comments. Just want to add a few more points. Propaganda is unrelated to whether or not an idea is hateful. But writing books, giving speeches, and advocating and organizing is not merely arguring. You claimed that the word "discoursed" was archaic (though my dictionary doesn't support you on this.) I agree that discourse is inadequate, because it does not include her written and other non-verbal activities. We had war propaganda during WWII, and there is no need to sugar coat propaganda. "Evangelized" might be a better word, but it has connotations associated with relgion. What word do you propose.
:::This is conservapedia, and Sanger did start what became planned parenthood. And emphasizing this, as is emphasized in conservative circles, makes the article distinctly conservative. That it is true is not in dispute. Now, if you have a reference says Sanger had nothing to do with the organization that became planned parenthood, I'm interested. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 23:11, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I proposed "advocated," which has no distracting connotations and has exactly the same denotation. I also like Ed Poor's "campaigned for," which carries political connotations, which is quite accurate.

::::I don't plan to downplay her role in Planned Parenthood, and the first specific thing she did mentioned anywhere in the article is founding the ABCL, which merged with the NBCL to become PP. I don't think that wording is downplaying her role at all (and neglecting this role would offend any ''completist'', of any political bent). I don't think she had no role in PP, don't be silly; she directed it for the bulk of her life. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Even according to Planned Parenthood... ==

From the Planned parenthood website (not a reliable source given the spin, but useful on a talk page to illustrate her role in the evolution of the modern abortion industry)...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/margaret-sanger-14115.htm Planned Parenthood defends Sanger (with deceit)]
! Commentary
|-
|Margaret Sanger gained worldwide renown, respect, and admiration for founding the American birth control movement and, later, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as well as for developing and encouraging family planning efforts throughout the international community.
|Replace "renown, respect, and admiration" with "infamy".
|-
|Among her many visionary accomplishments as a social reformer, Sanger
|Sanger was a visionary...who envisioned the extermination of the "Negro race" (her words). Thanks to abortion (many liberals call it birth control) over 10,000,000 african american babies have been murdered.
|-
|*established these principles:
|''principles'' is a word that should not be used to describe Sanger's creed
|-
|::*A woman's right to control her body is the foundation of her human rights
|Hmn, right to control her body. Where have I heard that before? Oh, wait, I remember, NARAL.
|-
|...
|
|-
|Sanger also entertained some ''popular ideas'' of her own time that are out of keeping with our thinking today. This fact sheet is designed to separate fact from fiction and to further explain Sanger's views and the background against which they must be judged.
|Popular ideas? Wow. The pinnacle of liberal apologetics.
|}

In any event, Sanger is pivotal in the evolution of abortion in American, and she held and propagandized for some pretty wacked out ideas. Whether or not Sanger was actually a NAZI, I have no proof, but I do suspect she influenced her NAZI counterparts in Germany, as *DID* others she asssociated herself with. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 23:31, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, thank you. PP is not going to be a very good source for info on their influential historical members. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== A feminist critical of Sanger ==

[http://www.angelafranks.com/ Angela Franks]. I think this would be an interesting perspective. Angela Franks has the appearance of being objective (but critical). {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 00:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Legacy ==

The number of abortions performed by an organization founded by Sanger has everything to do with her legacy. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Margaret Sanger

2007-07-26T05:22:01Z

PheasantHunter: see talk page

[[Image:Sanger2.jpg|thumb|right|Margaret Sanger and her two sons.]]
'''Margaret Sanger''' (born: September 14, 1879; died: September 6, 1966) was an American [[feminist]] and [[eugenics]] activist who founded the [[American Birth Control League]], which later became [[Planned Parenthood]].

==Feminism==

Sanger argued for woman's liberation from the "domination" of men. She advocated economic independence and even withdrawal from the traditional family unit, particularly marriage. She wrote of "how desperately woman desired freedom to develop herself as an individual, apart from [[motherhood]]" <ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/1013/2.html] </ref> (see [[self-realization]]).

==Birth control activism==
Margaret Sanger coined the term "[[birth control]]". In October of 1916, Sanger opened and illegally operated the first birth control clinic in the United States, in [[Brooklyn]], New York. It was raided by the police, and shut down. Sanger was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment for distributing [[contraceptives]], which were illegal then.

== Eugenics and racism==
Margaret Sanger campaigned for eugenic controls to enforce what she called "race hygiene" (a plan to sterilize and marginalize American immigrant Slavs, Italians, Jews, and blacks), and was a member of the [[American Eugenics Society]] and the [[English Eugenics Society]].<ref>http://www.all.org/abac/contents.txt</ref><ref>http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_98/feature.htm</ref><ref>[http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0057.html Angry White Female: Margaret Sanger's Race of Thoroughbreds]</ref>
== Racism ==
Margaret Sanger associated herself with racists<ref>{{hnb|Peterson|2007}}</ref> and in 1926, she was the guest speaker Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, New Jersey.<ref>{{hnb|Peterson|2007}} citing {{hnb|Douglas|1970|p=192}}</ref>
== The Sanger Legacy ==
[[Planned Parenthood]] annually gives awards to those who support their agenda and the top award which they give is called ''The Margaret Sanger Award''.<ref>[http://www.mailman.hs.columbia.edu/news/e-newsletter/AtTheFrontline-vol1no3/ne-AR-Sanger-Award.html Allan Rosenfield Receives the Reproductive Rights Movement's Highest Honor - Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Margaret Sanger Award]</ref><ref>[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/ppfa-margaret-sanger-award-winners.htm PPFA Margaret Sanger Award Winners]</ref> [[Alan Guttmacher]], who was a President of Planned Parenthood from 1962 to 1974 and who was also former Vice-President of the American Eugenics Society,<ref>[http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2007/01/29/what-is-roe-v-wade/ What is Roe v. Wade?]</ref><ref>[http://www.eugenics-watch.com/ Eugenics Watch]</ref> stated: "We are merely walking down the path that Ms. Sanger has carved out for us." <ref>[http://www.nationallifechain.org/PP.pdf What the Facts Reveal About Planned Pareenthood]</ref><ref>[http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf The Inherent Racism of Population Control By Paul Jalsevac]</ref> Similarly, Faye Wattleton, who was the president of Planned Parenthood until 1992, stated that she was "proud" to be "walking in the footsteps" of Margaret Sanger.<ref>[http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf The Inherent Racism of Population Control By Paul Jalsevac]</ref>

In the United States, over 3500 abortions are performed each day.<ref>[http://www.prolifeaction.org/faq/abortion.htm#yearly]</ref>

==Statements by Margaret Sanger==
{| style="width:55%" border="1"
|-
! Margaret Sanger Statements
|-
|"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." <ref>{{hnb|Sanger|1920|p=63}}, see also [http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html Transcript.]</ref>
|-
|"The mass of significant Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit and least able to rear children properly." - Margaret Sanger - The "Negro Project" quoting [[W.E.B. DuBois]] with the omission of one word <ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00147354/di975884/97p14282/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf34@buffalo.edu/01cce4406300501bbf062&dpi=3&config=jstor</ref>
|-
|"Before eugenicists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed,
they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control,
the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the [[race]] toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"<ref>http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v022/22.2sanger.html</ref>
|-
|"Organized charity is itself the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success" - Margaret Sanger, ''The Pivot of Civilization'' [NY: Brentano's, 1922], p. 108).<ref>http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/socl/socialconcerns/ThePivotofCivilization/chap6.html</ref>
|-
|"To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."<ref><Sanger, Margaret (1938). An Autobiography. New York, NY: Cooper Square Press></ref>
|-
|In Margaret Sanger's book ''The Pivot of Civilization'' she also called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." <ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/prolife/pp04a.txt Who Was Margaret Sanger]</ref>
|}

==References==
<references/>

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Douglas
| Given = Emily Taft
| Year = 1970
| Title = Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future
| Publisher = Holt, Rinehart & Winston
| Place = New York, NY
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Peterson
| Given = Jefferis Kent
| Year = 2007
| Title = Abortion - A Liberal Cause?
| URL = http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/peterson.html
| Publisher = Erik Rauch (MIT)
}} Retrieved on 2007-07-25
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Sanger
| Given = Margaret
| Year = 1920
| Title = Women and the New Race
| Publisher = Truth Publishing Company
| Place = New York, NY
}} [http://books.google.com/books?id=AywKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=Woman+and+the+New+Race Facsimile] retrieved on 2007-07-24
{{DEFAULTSORT:Sanger, Margaret}}
[[Category: Abortion]]

Conservapedia talk:User rights

2007-07-26T05:19:40Z

PheasantHunter: also thanks

I need upload rights. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 16:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Need" is a strong word, PheasantHunter. It connotes addiction. Are you not sure you would like them? Maybe like the right you now have? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::I meant "Conservapedia needs me to have"...and by the way, you're the pusher man. (also, thanks to whomever gave me them). {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:User rights

2007-07-26T05:19:22Z

PheasantHunter: The pusher man

I need upload rights. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 16:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Need" is a strong word, PheasantHunter. It connotes addiction. Are you not sure you would like them? Maybe like the right you now have? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::I meant "Conservapedia needs me to have"...and by the way, you're the pusher man. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 01:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Maxwell's Equations

2007-07-26T05:13:02Z

PheasantHunter: /* Integral Form */ Removing "Let's dispose of the integral form first."

'''Maxwell's Equations''', formulated around 1861 by [[James Maxwell|James Clerk Maxwell]] describe the interrelation between electric and magnetic fields.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>They were a synthesis of what was known about electricity and magnetism, particularly building on the work of [[Michael Faraday]], [[C. A. Coulomb|Charles-Augustin Coulomb]], [[Andre-Marie Ampere]], and others. These equations predicted the existence of [[Electromagnetic wave]]s, giving them properties that were recognized to be properties of light, leading to the (correct) realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. Other forms of electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, were not known at the time, but were subsequently demonstrated by [[Heinrich Hertz]] in 1888. These equations are considered to be among the most elegant edifices of mathematical physics.

Maxwell's equations serve many purposes and take many forms. On the one hand, they are used in the solution of actual real-world problems of electromagnetic fields and radiation. On the other hand, they are the subject of admiration for their elegance. There are many T-shirts, typically obtainable on college campuses, sporting various forms of these equations.

What follows is a survey of the various forms that these equations take, beginning with the most utilitarian and progressing to the most elegant. Which form you prefer depends on your scientific outlook, and perhaps your taste in T-shirts. The various <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}</math> and <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E}</math> symbols appearing in some of the equations are the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] operators, respectively.

They are usually formulated as four equations (but later we will see some particularly elegant versions with only two), and the equations are usually expressed in ''differential form'', that is, as [[Partial Differential Equations]] involving the divergence and curl operators. They can also be expressed with integrals. They are often expressed in terms of four vector fields: E, B, D, and H, though the simpler forms use only E and B.

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! differential form
! integral form
|-
| Coulomb's law of electrostatics, or [[Gauss's Law]]:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Absence of magnetic monopoles:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law, or the Biot-Savart Law, plus displacement current:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

In these, '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''D''' denotes the ''electric displacement field'', and '''H''' denotes the ''magnetic field strength'' or ''auxiliary field''. '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

==Integral Form==
The integral forms can be seen to be equivalent to the differential forms through the use of the general [[Stoke%27s Theorem]]. The form known as ''Gauss's Theorem'' (k=3) takes care of the equations involving the divergence, and the form commonly known as just ''Stokes' Theorem'' (k=2) takes care of those involving the curl.

We will say nothing further about the equations in integral form. The differential versions are the "real" Maxwell equations.

==What the Four Equations mean==
===Coulomb's Law===
The first equation is just [[C. A. Coulomb|Coulomb]]'s law of electrostatics, manipulated very elegantly (as usual) by [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]] and [[Gauss]]. Coulomb's law simply says that the electric force between two charged particles acts in the direction of the line between them, is repelling if they have like charges and attracting if unlike, is proportional to the product of the charges, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
:<math>F = \frac{q_1 q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>

In this case, the constant defining the strength of the electric force is <math>4 \pi \epsilon</math> in the denominator. More about that presently.

In [[International_System_of_Units|SI units]] the charges are measured in [[International_System_of_Units#Coulomb|Coulombs]], the force in [[International_System_of_Units#Newton|Newtons]], the distance in [[International_System_of_Units#Meter|Meters]], and the value of <math>\epsilon</math> is <math>8.854 \times 10^{-12}</math> Coulombs2 per Newton meter2, or [[International_System_of_Units#Farad|Farads]] per meter.

Michael Faraday reformulated the electric and magnetic forces in terms of ''fields'' He said that what was really happening was that each charge was creating an electric field (called E) that acted on the other charge. The field created by the charge q1, as observed at distance d, is
:<math>E = \frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>
and points directly outward from that charge, in all directions. The force felt by charge q2 is
:<math>F = q_2 E</math>

Now consider a sphere of radius d with the charge at the center. If <math>\rho</math> is the charge density in Coulombs per cubic meter (Maxwell's equations are in terms of densities), the total charge in some volume is the integral, over that volume, of <math>\rho</math>.

So we have
:<math>q = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Now the field at the surface of the sphere is
:<math>\frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>, or <math>\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2} \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
That field is directly outward, perpendicular to the sphere's surface, and is uniform over the surface. The integral of the field over the surface is <math>4 \pi d^2</math> times that (the surface area of the sphere is <math>4 \pi d^2</math>; this is why we have the pesky factor of <math>4 \pi</math> in various formulas; remember that d is the distance, and hence is the sphere's ''radius'', not its diameter), so
:<math>\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V = \oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A}</math>
But, by Gauss's Theorem,
:<math>\oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V</math>
So
:<math>\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V = \int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Since this is true for any volume, we have
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}</math>
Now D = <math>\epsilon\ E</math> in the straightforward case (more about that later), so
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
===Absence of Magnetic Monopoles===
The second of the equations is just like the first, but for the magnetic field. The divergence of B must be the spatial density of magnetic monopoles. Since they have never been observed (though various Grand Unified Theories might allow for them), the value is zero.

This wasn't formulated initially in terms of monopoles, but was actually a statement that magnetic "lines of force" (the lines that intuitively describe the field) never end. They just circulate around various conductors carrying electric current. In contrast to this, lines of the electric field can be thought to "begin" and "end" on charged particles.
===Faraday's Law===
The third equation contains the result of Faraday's experiments with "electromagnetic induction"—a changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and that electric field circulates around the area experiencing the change in total magnetic flux. (Remember that the curl operator measures the extent to which a vector field runs in circles.) We won't go into the details of his experiments, except to note that he discovered that moving a coil of wire (a loop to pick up a circulating electric field) through a magnetic field (for example, by putting it on a shaft and turning it) led to the invention of electric generators, and hence made a major contribution to the industrialization of the world. Not bad for a theoretician.

==Other Formulations==
In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the Faraday tensor.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Gauss's Law

2007-07-26T05:11:02Z

PheasantHunter: Category:Electrical engineering

Gauss's Law states that the electric flux through a closed surface is proporational to the electrical charge inside. This holds true regardless of the volume or shape of the closed surface. This is one of the most fundamental principles of electrodynamics, and is a [[Maxwell equation]].

In integral form, Gauss's Law is this:

: <math>\Phi = \oint_S \vec{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\vec{A}
= {1 \over \varepsilon_o} \int_V \rho\ \mathrm{d}V = \frac{Q_A}{\varepsilon_o}</math>

where <math>\Phi</math> is the electric potential (flux), <math>\vec{E}</math> is the [[electric field]], <math>\mathrm{d}\vec{A}</math> is a differential area on the closed surface ''S'' with an outward facing [[surface normal]] defining its direction, <math>Q_\mathrm{A}</math> is the charge enclosed by the surface, <math>\rho</math> is the charge density at a point in <math>V</math>, <math>\varepsilon_o</math> is a constant for the [[permittivity]] of free space and the integral <math>\oint_S</math> is over the surface ''S'' enclosing volume ''V''.
[[category:physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Maxwell's Equations

2007-07-26T05:10:31Z

PheasantHunter: wikilinking to Gauss's Law article

'''Maxwell's Equations''', formulated around 1861 by [[James Maxwell|James Clerk Maxwell]] describe the interrelation between electric and magnetic fields.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>They were a synthesis of what was known about electricity and magnetism, particularly building on the work of [[Michael Faraday]], [[C. A. Coulomb|Charles-Augustin Coulomb]], [[Andre-Marie Ampere]], and others. These equations predicted the existence of [[Electromagnetic wave]]s, giving them properties that were recognized to be properties of light, leading to the (correct) realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. Other forms of electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, were not known at the time, but were subsequently demonstrated by [[Heinrich Hertz]] in 1888. These equations are considered to be among the most elegant edifices of mathematical physics.

Maxwell's equations serve many purposes and take many forms. On the one hand, they are used in the solution of actual real-world problems of electromagnetic fields and radiation. On the other hand, they are the subject of admiration for their elegance. There are many T-shirts, typically obtainable on college campuses, sporting various forms of these equations.

What follows is a survey of the various forms that these equations take, beginning with the most utilitarian and progressing to the most elegant. Which form you prefer depends on your scientific outlook, and perhaps your taste in T-shirts. The various <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}</math> and <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E}</math> symbols appearing in some of the equations are the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] operators, respectively.

They are usually formulated as four equations (but later we will see some particularly elegant versions with only two), and the equations are usually expressed in ''differential form'', that is, as [[Partial Differential Equations]] involving the divergence and curl operators. They can also be expressed with integrals. They are often expressed in terms of four vector fields: E, B, D, and H, though the simpler forms use only E and B.

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! differential form
! integral form
|-
| Coulomb's law of electrostatics, or [[Gauss's Law]]:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Absence of magnetic monopoles:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law, or the Biot-Savart Law, plus displacement current:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

In these, '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''D''' denotes the ''electric displacement field'', and '''H''' denotes the ''magnetic field strength'' or ''auxiliary field''. '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

==Integral Form==
Let's dispose of the integral form first. The integral forms can be seen to be equivalent to the differential forms through the use of the general [[Stoke%27s Theorem]]. The form known as ''Gauss's Theorem'' (k=3) takes care of the equations involving the divergence, and the form commonly known as just ''Stokes' Theorem'' (k=2) takes care of those involving the curl.

We will say nothing further about the equations in integral form. The differential versions are the "real" Maxwell equations.

==What the Four Equations mean==
===Coulomb's Law===
The first equation is just [[C. A. Coulomb|Coulomb]]'s law of electrostatics, manipulated very elegantly (as usual) by [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]] and [[Gauss]]. Coulomb's law simply says that the electric force between two charged particles acts in the direction of the line between them, is repelling if they have like charges and attracting if unlike, is proportional to the product of the charges, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
:<math>F = \frac{q_1 q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>

In this case, the constant defining the strength of the electric force is <math>4 \pi \epsilon</math> in the denominator. More about that presently.

In [[International_System_of_Units|SI units]] the charges are measured in [[International_System_of_Units#Coulomb|Coulombs]], the force in [[International_System_of_Units#Newton|Newtons]], the distance in [[International_System_of_Units#Meter|Meters]], and the value of <math>\epsilon</math> is <math>8.854 \times 10^{-12}</math> Coulombs2 per Newton meter2, or [[International_System_of_Units#Farad|Farads]] per meter.

Michael Faraday reformulated the electric and magnetic forces in terms of ''fields'' He said that what was really happening was that each charge was creating an electric field (called E) that acted on the other charge. The field created by the charge q1, as observed at distance d, is
:<math>E = \frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>
and points directly outward from that charge, in all directions. The force felt by charge q2 is
:<math>F = q_2 E</math>

Now consider a sphere of radius d with the charge at the center. If <math>\rho</math> is the charge density in Coulombs per cubic meter (Maxwell's equations are in terms of densities), the total charge in some volume is the integral, over that volume, of <math>\rho</math>.

So we have
:<math>q = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Now the field at the surface of the sphere is
:<math>\frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>, or <math>\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2} \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
That field is directly outward, perpendicular to the sphere's surface, and is uniform over the surface. The integral of the field over the surface is <math>4 \pi d^2</math> times that (the surface area of the sphere is <math>4 \pi d^2</math>; this is why we have the pesky factor of <math>4 \pi</math> in various formulas; remember that d is the distance, and hence is the sphere's ''radius'', not its diameter), so
:<math>\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V = \oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A}</math>
But, by Gauss's Theorem,
:<math>\oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V</math>
So
:<math>\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V = \int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Since this is true for any volume, we have
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}</math>
Now D = <math>\epsilon\ E</math> in the straightforward case (more about that later), so
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
===Absence of Magnetic Monopoles===
The second of the equations is just like the first, but for the magnetic field. The divergence of B must be the spatial density of magnetic monopoles. Since they have never been observed (though various Grand Unified Theories might allow for them), the value is zero.

This wasn't formulated initially in terms of monopoles, but was actually a statement that magnetic "lines of force" (the lines that intuitively describe the field) never end. They just circulate around various conductors carrying electric current. In contrast to this, lines of the electric field can be thought to "begin" and "end" on charged particles.
===Faraday's Law===
The third equation contains the result of Faraday's experiments with "electromagnetic induction"—a changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and that electric field circulates around the area experiencing the change in total magnetic flux. (Remember that the curl operator measures the extent to which a vector field runs in circles.) We won't go into the details of his experiments, except to note that he discovered that moving a coil of wire (a loop to pick up a circulating electric field) through a magnetic field (for example, by putting it on a shaft and turning it) led to the invention of electric generators, and hence made a major contribution to the industrialization of the world. Not bad for a theoretician.

==Other Formulations==
In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the Faraday tensor.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Electromagnetic wave

2007-07-26T05:05:09Z

PheasantHunter: Category:Electrical engineering

A transverse wave composed of an oscillating electrical field and a magnetic field that oscillate perpendicular to the electric field.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

The spectrum of electromagnetic waves has an extremely wide range from radio waves, micro waves, TeraHertz radiation, infrared (IR) radiation, visible light, ultraviolett (UV) light, far UV radiation, soft X-rays, hard X-rays and <math>\gamma</math>-radiation.

Electromagnetic waves are well described by the classical laws of electricity and magnetism, known as [[Maxwell's Equations]].

== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

James Maxwell

2007-07-26T05:04:19Z

PheasantHunter: Redirect to James Maxwell

#REDIRECT [[James Maxwell]]

Maxwell's Equations

2007-07-26T05:03:49Z

PheasantHunter: Fixing wikilink to James Clerk Maxwell

'''Maxwell's Equations''', formulated around 1861 by [[James Maxwell|James Clerk Maxwell]] describe the interrelation between electric and magnetic fields.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>They were a synthesis of what was known about electricity and magnetism, particularly building on the work of [[Michael Faraday]], [[C. A. Coulomb|Charles-Augustin Coulomb]], [[Andre-Marie Ampere]], and others. These equations predicted the existence of [[Electromagnetic wave]]s, giving them properties that were recognized to be properties of light, leading to the (correct) realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. Other forms of electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, were not known at the time, but were subsequently demonstrated by [[Heinrich Hertz]] in 1888. These equations are considered to be among the most elegant edifices of mathematical physics.

Maxwell's equations serve many purposes and take many forms. On the one hand, they are used in the solution of actual real-world problems of electromagnetic fields and radiation. On the other hand, they are the subject of admiration for their elegance. There are many T-shirts, typically obtainable on college campuses, sporting various forms of these equations.

What follows is a survey of the various forms that these equations take, beginning with the most utilitarian and progressing to the most elegant. Which form you prefer depends on your scientific outlook, and perhaps your taste in T-shirts. The various <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}</math> and <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E}</math> symbols appearing in some of the equations are the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] operators, respectively.

They are usually formulated as four equations (but later we will see some particularly elegant versions with only two), and the equations are usually expressed in ''differential form'', that is, as [[Partial Differential Equations]] involving the divergence and curl operators. They can also be expressed with integrals. They are often expressed in terms of four vector fields: E, B, D, and H, though the simpler forms use only E and B.

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! differential form
! integral form
|-
| Coulomb's law of electrostatics, or Gauss's Law:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Absence of magnetic monopoles:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law, or the Biot-Savart Law, plus displacement current:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

In these, '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''D''' denotes the ''electric displacement field'', and '''H''' denotes the ''magnetic field strength'' or ''auxiliary field''. '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

==Integral Form==
Let's dispose of the integral form first. The integral forms can be seen to be equivalent to the differential forms through the use of the general [[Stoke%27s Theorem]]. The form known as ''Gauss's Theorem'' (k=3) takes care of the equations involving the divergence, and the form commonly known as just ''Stokes' Theorem'' (k=2) takes care of those involving the curl.

We will say nothing further about the equations in integral form. The differential versions are the "real" Maxwell equations.

==What the Four Equations mean==
===Coulomb's Law===
The first equation is just [[C. A. Coulomb|Coulomb]]'s law of electrostatics, manipulated very elegantly (as usual) by [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]] and [[Gauss]]. Coulomb's law simply says that the electric force between two charged particles acts in the direction of the line between them, is repelling if they have like charges and attracting if unlike, is proportional to the product of the charges, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
:<math>F = \frac{q_1 q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>

In this case, the constant defining the strength of the electric force is <math>4 \pi \epsilon</math> in the denominator. More about that presently.

In [[International_System_of_Units|SI units]] the charges are measured in [[International_System_of_Units#Coulomb|Coulombs]], the force in [[International_System_of_Units#Newton|Newtons]], the distance in [[International_System_of_Units#Meter|Meters]], and the value of <math>\epsilon</math> is <math>8.854 \times 10^{-12}</math> Coulombs2 per Newton meter2, or [[International_System_of_Units#Farad|Farads]] per meter.

Michael Faraday reformulated the electric and magnetic forces in terms of ''fields'' He said that what was really happening was that each charge was creating an electric field (called E) that acted on the other charge. The field created by the charge q1, as observed at distance d, is
:<math>E = \frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>
and points directly outward from that charge, in all directions. The force felt by charge q2 is
:<math>F = q_2 E</math>

Now consider a sphere of radius d with the charge at the center. If <math>\rho</math> is the charge density in Coulombs per cubic meter (Maxwell's equations are in terms of densities), the total charge in some volume is the integral, over that volume, of <math>\rho</math>.

So we have
:<math>q = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Now the field at the surface of the sphere is
:<math>\frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>, or <math>\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2} \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
That field is directly outward, perpendicular to the sphere's surface, and is uniform over the surface. The integral of the field over the surface is <math>4 \pi d^2</math> times that (the surface area of the sphere is <math>4 \pi d^2</math>; this is why we have the pesky factor of <math>4 \pi</math> in various formulas; remember that d is the distance, and hence is the sphere's ''radius'', not its diameter), so
:<math>\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V = \oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A}</math>
But, by Gauss's Theorem,
:<math>\oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V</math>
So
:<math>\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V = \int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Since this is true for any volume, we have
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}</math>
Now D = <math>\epsilon\ E</math> in the straightforward case (more about that later), so
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
===Absence of Magnetic Monopoles===
The second of the equations is just like the first, but for the magnetic field. The divergence of B must be the spatial density of magnetic monopoles. Since they have never been observed (though various Grand Unified Theories might allow for them), the value is zero.

This wasn't formulated initially in terms of monopoles, but was actually a statement that magnetic "lines of force" (the lines that intuitively describe the field) never end. They just circulate around various conductors carrying electric current. In contrast to this, lines of the electric field can be thought to "begin" and "end" on charged particles.
===Faraday's Law===
The third equation contains the result of Faraday's experiments with "electromagnetic induction"—a changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and that electric field circulates around the area experiencing the change in total magnetic flux. (Remember that the curl operator measures the extent to which a vector field runs in circles.) We won't go into the details of his experiments, except to note that he discovered that moving a coil of wire (a loop to pick up a circulating electric field) through a magnetic field (for example, by putting it on a shaft and turning it) led to the invention of electric generators, and hence made a major contribution to the industrialization of the world. Not bad for a theoretician.

==Other Formulations==
In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the Faraday tensor.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Maxwell's Equations

2007-07-26T05:03:00Z

PheasantHunter: Adding Category:Electrical engineering

'''Maxwell's Equations''', formulated around 1861 by [[James Clerk Maxwell]] describe the interrelation between electric and magnetic fields.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>They were a synthesis of what was known about electricity and magnetism, particularly building on the work of [[Michael Faraday]], [[C. A. Coulomb|Charles-Augustin Coulomb]], [[Andre-Marie Ampere]], and others. These equations predicted the existence of [[Electromagnetic wave]]s, giving them properties that were recognized to be properties of light, leading to the (correct) realization that light is an electromagnetic wave. Other forms of electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves, were not known at the time, but were subsequently demonstrated by [[Heinrich Hertz]] in 1888. These equations are considered to be among the most elegant edifices of mathematical physics.

Maxwell's equations serve many purposes and take many forms. On the one hand, they are used in the solution of actual real-world problems of electromagnetic fields and radiation. On the other hand, they are the subject of admiration for their elegance. There are many T-shirts, typically obtainable on college campuses, sporting various forms of these equations.

What follows is a survey of the various forms that these equations take, beginning with the most utilitarian and progressing to the most elegant. Which form you prefer depends on your scientific outlook, and perhaps your taste in T-shirts. The various <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}</math> and <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E}</math> symbols appearing in some of the equations are the [[divergence]] and [[curl]] operators, respectively.

They are usually formulated as four equations (but later we will see some particularly elegant versions with only two), and the equations are usually expressed in ''differential form'', that is, as [[Partial Differential Equations]] involving the divergence and curl operators. They can also be expressed with integrals. They are often expressed in terms of four vector fields: E, B, D, and H, though the simpler forms use only E and B.

{| class="wikitable" border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
! Name
! differential form
! integral form
|-
| Coulomb's law of electrostatics, or Gauss's Law:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{D} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
|-
| Absence of magnetic monopoles:
| <math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0</math>
| <math>\oint_S \mathbf{B} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = 0</math>
|-
| Faraday's Law of Induction:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = - \int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|-
| Ampère's Law, or the Biot-Savart Law, plus displacement current:
| <math>\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \mathbf{J} + \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}} {\partial t}</math>
| <math>\oint_C \mathbf{H} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{l} = \int_S \mathbf{J} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A} +
\int_S \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}}{\partial t} \cdot \mathrm{d} \mathbf{A}</math>
|}

In these, '''E''' denotes the [[electric field]], '''B''' denotes the [[magnetic field]], '''D''' denotes the ''electric displacement field'', and '''H''' denotes the ''magnetic field strength'' or ''auxiliary field''. '''J''' denotes the free [[current density]], and <math>\rho</math> denotes the free [[electric charge density]].

==Integral Form==
Let's dispose of the integral form first. The integral forms can be seen to be equivalent to the differential forms through the use of the general [[Stoke%27s Theorem]]. The form known as ''Gauss's Theorem'' (k=3) takes care of the equations involving the divergence, and the form commonly known as just ''Stokes' Theorem'' (k=2) takes care of those involving the curl.

We will say nothing further about the equations in integral form. The differential versions are the "real" Maxwell equations.

==What the Four Equations mean==
===Coulomb's Law===
The first equation is just [[C. A. Coulomb|Coulomb]]'s law of electrostatics, manipulated very elegantly (as usual) by [[Michael Faraday|Faraday]] and [[Gauss]]. Coulomb's law simply says that the electric force between two charged particles acts in the direction of the line between them, is repelling if they have like charges and attracting if unlike, is proportional to the product of the charges, and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them:
:<math>F = \frac{q_1 q_2}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>

In this case, the constant defining the strength of the electric force is <math>4 \pi \epsilon</math> in the denominator. More about that presently.

In [[International_System_of_Units|SI units]] the charges are measured in [[International_System_of_Units#Coulomb|Coulombs]], the force in [[International_System_of_Units#Newton|Newtons]], the distance in [[International_System_of_Units#Meter|Meters]], and the value of <math>\epsilon</math> is <math>8.854 \times 10^{-12}</math> Coulombs2 per Newton meter2, or [[International_System_of_Units#Farad|Farads]] per meter.

Michael Faraday reformulated the electric and magnetic forces in terms of ''fields'' He said that what was really happening was that each charge was creating an electric field (called E) that acted on the other charge. The field created by the charge q1, as observed at distance d, is
:<math>E = \frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>
and points directly outward from that charge, in all directions. The force felt by charge q2 is
:<math>F = q_2 E</math>

Now consider a sphere of radius d with the charge at the center. If <math>\rho</math> is the charge density in Coulombs per cubic meter (Maxwell's equations are in terms of densities), the total charge in some volume is the integral, over that volume, of <math>\rho</math>.

So we have
:<math>q = \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Now the field at the surface of the sphere is
:<math>\frac{q_1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2}</math>, or <math>\frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon\ d^2} \int_V \rho\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
That field is directly outward, perpendicular to the sphere's surface, and is uniform over the surface. The integral of the field over the surface is <math>4 \pi d^2</math> times that (the surface area of the sphere is <math>4 \pi d^2</math>; this is why we have the pesky factor of <math>4 \pi</math> in various formulas; remember that d is the distance, and hence is the sphere's ''radius'', not its diameter), so
:<math>\int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V = \oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A}</math>
But, by Gauss's Theorem,
:<math>\oint_S \mathbf{E} \cdot \mathrm{d}\mathbf{A} = \int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V</math>
So
:<math>\int_V \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}\ \mathrm{d}V = \int_V \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}\, \mathrm{d}V</math>
Since this is true for any volume, we have
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \frac{\rho}{\epsilon}</math>
Now D = <math>\epsilon\ E</math> in the straightforward case (more about that later), so
:<math>\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = \rho</math>
===Absence of Magnetic Monopoles===
The second of the equations is just like the first, but for the magnetic field. The divergence of B must be the spatial density of magnetic monopoles. Since they have never been observed (though various Grand Unified Theories might allow for them), the value is zero.

This wasn't formulated initially in terms of monopoles, but was actually a statement that magnetic "lines of force" (the lines that intuitively describe the field) never end. They just circulate around various conductors carrying electric current. In contrast to this, lines of the electric field can be thought to "begin" and "end" on charged particles.
===Faraday's Law===
The third equation contains the result of Faraday's experiments with "electromagnetic induction"—a changing magnetic field creates an electric field, and that electric field circulates around the area experiencing the change in total magnetic flux. (Remember that the curl operator measures the extent to which a vector field runs in circles.) We won't go into the details of his experiments, except to note that he discovered that moving a coil of wire (a loop to pick up a circulating electric field) through a magnetic field (for example, by putting it on a shaft and turning it) led to the invention of electric generators, and hence made a major contribution to the industrialization of the world. Not bad for a theoretician.

==Other Formulations==
In the language of [[Exterior Calculus]], Maxwell's equations can be rewritten much more compactly as:
:<math>\mathrm{d}\bold{F}=0</math>
:<math>\mathrm{d} * {\bold{F}}=\bold{J}</math>
where '''d''' is [[exterior derivative]] operator, '''*''' is the [[Hodge star]] operator, and '''F''' is the Faraday tensor.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Maxwells Equations

2007-07-26T05:02:04Z

PheasantHunter: #REDIRECT Maxwell's Equations

#REDIRECT [[Maxwell's Equations]]

Central processing unit

2007-07-26T04:55:27Z

PheasantHunter: Fetch, decode, execute cycle

[[Image:Cpu.gif|frame|right|<center>Block Diagram of a simple CPU</center>]]
A '''Central Processing Unit''' (CPU) is the main control mechanism of a [[computer]], containing control logic, registers, and arithmetic logic unit (ALU) as well as a memory interface. Some CPUs implement additional functionality, but often other capabilities are provided through peripheral processors that handle such things as input/output (I/O), floating-point [[arithmetic]], and [[vector]] processing. All computers contain at least one CPU, but some contemporary computers contain over 1,000.

The purpose of a CPU is to execute programs. Programs are a series of numeric values, where each value indicates a specific operation. Each value is referred to as an '''instruction''', and has a corresponding mnemonic for programming convenience. These values are known as [[machine code]]. All of the instructions that can be executed by a CPU are collectively known as the CPU's '''instruction set'''. Different CPU models usually implement completely different instruction sets, so that programs written for one CPU will not execute on a different one. Writing programs in machine code is difficult, so programs called '''assemblers''' were written to translate mnemonics into machine code, thus increasing the speed of writing, and the reliability of, programs. Since the 1960s, most programs have been written using a [[Programming Language]], which are even easier to use than an assembler.

A microprocessor is '''any''' processor implemented on a single integrated circuit, however most microprocessors are CPUs. The largest producer of microprocessors used in general-purpose computers is [[Intel]].
== Operation ==
The basic operation of a CPU is the "Fetch, Decode, Execute" cycle.<ref>[http://www.it.jcu.edu.au/Subjects/cp1300/resources/lectnotes/system/fde.html Fetch-Decode-Execute Cycle]</ref> The ''instruction fetcher'' fetches instructions from memory. The ''control logic'' decodes and executes the instruction. The ALU is used to perform arithmetic and logical operations such as adding a value in memory to a value in a register and storing the result in another register. On some CPUs, some instructions may require additional fetches from memory (e.g., to get or store operands). A program in memory is executed sequentially, with each instruction stored in a different memory location. The instruction pointer (IP) register keeps tracks of the current program position, and is updated (usually incremented) after each CPU cycle.

==References==
<references/>
== External links ==
*[http://computer.howstuffworks.com/microprocessor.htm How Microprocessors Work]

[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Electrical engineering]]

Central processing unit

2007-07-26T04:47:17Z

PheasantHunter: Adding CPU block diagram I created

File:Cpu.gif

2007-07-26T04:44:46Z

PheasantHunter: Image created by PheasantHunter for Conservapedia, and whomever conservapedia chooses to give it to.

Image created by PheasantHunter for Conservapedia, and whomever conservapedia chooses to give it to.

Margaret Sanger

2007-07-26T04:13:59Z

PheasantHunter: Knock it off. Facts are cited.

Talk:Margaret Sanger

2007-07-26T04:12:52Z

PheasantHunter: A feminist critical of Sanger

User:PheasantHunter/Images

2007-07-26T04:07:35Z

PheasantHunter: /* =References */

This is a page to keep track of images I have uploaded but not yet used.

[[Image:Margaret-sanger-flyer.gif|thumb|right|Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Meeting<ref>[http://www.archives.gov/publications/record/1998/09/images/margaret-sanger-flyer.gif archives.gov]</ref>]]
==References==
<references/>

User:PheasantHunter/Images

2007-07-26T04:07:27Z

PheasantHunter: New page: This is a page to keep track of images I have uploaded but not yet used. [[Image:Margaret-sanger-flyer.gif|thumb|right|Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Meeting<ref>[http://www.archives.gov...

File:Margaret-sanger-flyer.gif

2007-07-26T04:05:36Z

PheasantHunter: Assumed public domain, source of image is http://www.archives.gov/publications/record/1998/09/images/margaret-sanger-flyer.gif

Assumed public domain, source of image is http://www.archives.gov/publications/record/1998/09/images/margaret-sanger-flyer.gif

User talk:Hypnotoad

2007-07-26T03:59:20Z

PheasantHunter: New page: Your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Family_values&curid=39796&diff=250573&oldid=250561 edit] has been identified as an attempt at humor. If you survive on Conservapedia, pl...

Your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Family_values&curid=39796&diff=250573&oldid=250561 edit] has been identified as an attempt at humor. If you survive on Conservapedia, please be more careful in the future. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 23:59, 25 July 2007 (EDT)