User talk:David R/Archive 1

THIS IS A PERSONAL TALK PAGE
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Any complaints, compliments, or suggestions should be left here. Only obscene or crude comments will ever be removed from this page.

Archives
Archive 1

Please comment!

Willy's edits

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the Bill Clinton edit which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --David R 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. JoshuaZ 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --David R 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The rules say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--Aschlafly 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. MountainDew 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--David R 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--Aschlafly 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems very provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." Dwight D. Eisenhower would become Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels, Molybdenum would become Molybdenum on wheels, and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. Dpbsmith 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. JoshuaZ, you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). Dpbsmith 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on regular editors, who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I like my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be me. This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much.

Think "conversion, not coercion." Dpbsmith 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, Dpbsmith, the user's IP address is blocked from entering the website at all. Believe me, I already got blocked once :). The only way for the user to get back in would be for him to change his IP address, which I believe is possible. But it takes some knowledge and persistence. --David R 09:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, it is pretty trivial to change one's IP address. For example, if one is using AOL then the IP address changes almost constantly. Similarly, for almost any dial-up service all you need to do to change IP addresses is hang up and redial. Blocking an IP address does very little. JoshuaZ 23:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not too familiar with AOL(except for all those trial CD's they send) or dial-up. I do know that with IE and some other browsers, you must go to the IP Configuration screen at computer start-up. --David R 23:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)

It's also worth noting that, for a number of high-speed services, the IP address seen by Conservapedia (or Wikipedia or any other web service) is often an ISP's 'gateway' IP or IP cloud; the actual IP of a specific user is internal to the provider, in which case blocking the IP address or address group risks blocking other folx who happen to use the same service provider. Not sure what's to be done about it, but just thought I'd mention this point. Niwrad 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocks

Good block, David. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

No problem. Two weeks enough? I don't know if he'll be back to help or hurt. I can always increase it. --<<-David R->> 21:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Two weeks sounds good in borderline cases, as in that case. I often put in an infinite block if the person is directly harmful to the site.--Aschlafly 23:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Bonobos

I was in the process of expanding and cleaning the language of that up. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it for me to work on. Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no problem. Just can't leave that kind of stuff up for too long. Good looking out, Joshua. --<<-David R->> 20:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks, I've cleaned it up, expanded it and taken out the more blunt language. Let me know how it is.

Its definitely a cleaner article. Thank you very much. --<<-David R->> 21:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Could you remove the pluralization on the word female in that article? My computer is going crazy with "forbidden words". --<<-David R->> 21:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, I changed it in a slightly different fashion to just "females" since I think it is clear what types of females one is talking about. JoshuaZ 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, that makes sense. --<<-David R->> 21:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

And you are fine with how I hanlded the sexuality issue? (I have to say, I don't know why the original editor put in the details other than to be annoying or test our limits). JoshuaZ 21:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, it was improved dramatically. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 21:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Image resizing

In reference to my new image file on musical notes: Please resize it if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, the software blew up--and when I put an internal link into the article, telling it to scale the image down, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in CreationWiki. When I do, the software blows up, saying that "no such file or directory" exists. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then show me how for future reference.--TerryH 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Bill Clinton

What happened is Dprbsmith moved the Clinton page back to where it was originally. Geo. 23:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Back to Bill Clinton? I was unaware that it had ever been there before. Thank you. --<<-David R->> 16:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Great work!

Great effort, David, with your entry on Alvin York!!!! --Aschlafly 00:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Oh thanks. I had to write an informational essay about him in another history class and I thought it would be good to put it on the site. --<<-David R->> 16:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Tehran

Regarding this? Would you like to argue that Mahmoud was not the former mayor of Tehran, and is not the current president of Iran? It's not misinformation. Ask for a source, I'd be glad to give it to you. --Hojimachong 23:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, I was mistaken. I did not see that you had edited it correctly. --<<-David R->> 23:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I got the source anyways, it's on there now, feel free to critique. I'm new to Conservapedia, and am still figuring out the fine differences between it and Wikipedia. --Hojimachong 23:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Delete and block

I presume you will want to delete Cretinism and warn or block the user who made it. JoshuaZ 00:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wow...yeah I was just about to delete the redirect. But I don't this blocking the user for the entry is justifiable in this case. His entry was a thoughtful redirect for the incompetent speller :). --<<-David R->> 00:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

You may want to look up what cretinism means. JoshuaZ 00:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah...I guess I should have. Blocking was definitely the right choice. Sorry about that. --<<-David R->> 00:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

On my talk page

Explain what you believe is not factual when accusing someone of not adding factual information. Sulgran

What is factual about what was posted PhilipB 22:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Democratic Party+

At least please do some serious work yourself on the Democratic Party entry. This site is so embarrassingly uneducated. Why not produce something you can be proud of? genespleen

While the article could use some work - articles always need work; they are never perfect - it did not need the "work" you suggested. As for this site, it is not uneducated nor embarrassing. In fact, I am positive that this project will look great on my college transcript.

From genespleen: seriously, it depends on what you intend to do after college. Do think seriously and ask for good advice from a *range* of people about what your having participated in this site's effort may signal to others.

Actually, the mere fact that I participated in making this site is enough. My involvement has nothing to do with the material or the stance of this site. How many students have you heard of making an online encyclopedia? --<<-David R->> 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I am very proud of this site. I did not think it would turn out as great as it has. As for contributing any more material to the article, I am afraid I can't - need to be up early for my SATs tomorrow! --<<-David R->> 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. Sign your posts please. It makes it so much easier to respond.

Please also explain your objections to my edits on the Democratic Party entry. What constituted "vandalism" in my edits?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. genespleen

You inserted your own biased comments and advertized a site that provided nothing to the article. There you go - my explanation. Enjoy. --<<-David R->> 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him. Conservative 22:31, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I told you, I can't. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. Christian Concern's edits may have been troublesome, but expletiveSaddams were directly harmful to the site. They should be the first priority. --<<-David R->> 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

expletivesaddaam question

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. Conservative 22:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

His name is the problem. Please assume your duties as a Sysop and block him. Do that first. Then revert his edits. --<<-David R->> 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then....

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then not giving me the information I need in order to ban him. Unless you tell me an article he edited I cannot find him to ban him. 22:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Are you so dense??? His name contains a curse word! He needs to be blocked. But this user sounds like he regrets using the name, so block him but uncheck the box underneath to allow account recreation. --<<-David R->> 22:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

PS go to Full Metal Jackets talk page, look at history, proceed from there

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please next time give me an article the person edited so I can find the person. Conservative 22:43, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

If you told me that at the beginning, I would have gladly given you the information. His edit was on the recent edits page... --<<-David R->> 22:44, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Why did...

Why did you erase my edits and remove some characters from the Talk:Main_Page page? Please explain...? GofG 23:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history". It was nothing personal at all. Most of your edits have been very valuable. --<<-David R->> 23:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Religions: They're not ALL True!

It says right on the front page: "

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America."

So why did you edit the religion page to lump Christianity in with the FALSE religions? --Fullmetajacket 00:03, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I was wondering who was asking me this. I did not say they were all true. I am a Christian. I have no reason to say that Christianity isn't true. I believe it is true. But we cannot say that here. It is just too biased. Take for contrast, wikipedia saying that secularism is the only true religion. That would never work. But they hint through every other article that secularism and a god-less humanity is the true religion. Likewise, instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles. Your version would instantly turn away anyone from another religion. Christianity should not alienate other human beings. They need this encyclopedia more than we do. --<<-David R->> 00:10, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Uh huh. And the NEXT thing you'e going to do is let all the liberals and atheists and whatnot start posting here, so this place can become "wikipedia junior"? If so, we might as well just post there and not waste our time! THE TRUTH DOES NOT HAVE A "BIAS"! It sounds like you're ASHAMED of Jesus! --Fullmetajacket 00:13, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I really wish you hadn't accused me of such a thing, as there is nothing further from the truth. As for the liberals and atheists, if they have something intelligent to post, I say let them. I will disregard your comments as they are probably driven by some emotional factor. Think about what you are saying before you click save. --<<-David R->> 00:19, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Dude, I gotta love you for letting the liberals (myself included) post. I was worried this was going to turn into a full-on propaganda site, but if you're open to letting us get a word in it might be worth sticking around for. The way you just phrased that though I found hilarious. "instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles." you may need to check the definition of hint, though. Some of these articles are just ridiculous.

Haha. Yeah funny. I guess you saw the part where I "hinted" that most liberals and athiest truly don't:D have anything intelligent to say!!! Your right. It is pretty funny. --<<-David R->> 20:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree

Not to be rude, but I honestly can not tell whether this was serious or sarcastic. Could you tell me? After all, text doesn't convey emotion or voice :D. Sorry, --Hojimachong 00:04, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure, either. That's the trouble with debates over the internet. I think David is saying that the tree is a distraction to the faith. The tree is not a religious symbol.--Aschlafly 00:09, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Haha. Sorry, I did not write that well. The guy we were debating said that the tree was an idol. And while the tree, could be a distraction to the faith as Mr. Schlafly suggested, I was eluding to the fact that most Christians are not sitting in their homes on Christmas, worshiping the tree. Debates over the Internet are difficult. Though in context with what I had been saying before, the entry should have been taken as sarcastic. --<<-David R->> 00:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. The tree really isn't even part of Christmas. Its a decorative tradition from Germany dating back to pagan times and is certainly not central to the Christian faith. Its no more Christian than a Santa Claus parade (which is more about Saint Nicholas and the warping of his story). Sadly, we don't have Jesus Christ parades.

Sentence fragments?

I haven't noticed any sentence fragments.

Please point out specific ones if there are any and I shall fix them.

I have already fixed them all. See any of your originals in their respective history and you will see what I mean. Using the page title as the sentence's subject does not look "encyclopediac". Your contributions have been great. Just write whole sentences and I'm sure you'll do fine. --<<-David R->> 23:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Commonly Misspelled Words

Joke: Ive noticed quit a few words that are mispelled on here. I imagine its becuz the site is still relatively knew and nobody has bothered too go over everything with a fine-tooth coomb. :)

Yes. It is a big problem. None or at most one of my recent edits have misspelled words, because I have a new internet browser with an in-browser-spell-checker! Unfortunately, it looks as if very few others have this great tool... --<<-David R->> 23:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Venona series

David, I am the author of virtually the entire Venona series in Wikiepdia; the entries I am moving here a my original work, as many current versions are sanitized of all relevent content. Here's my original user page w/Barnstar for Venobna series. [1] RobS 00:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I didn't know that. I'll restore them right away. --<<-David R->> 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks David. There are almost three hundred articles in the series. I don't see the necessity to bring them all over at once. However, some of the major articles, like Whittaker Chambers for example, just contrast that one with the current Wikipedia entry to get some idea of whats happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

Look at the work that was put into it so they could (1) refer to his mentally ill-grandmother; (2) use the word "dysfunctional" twice; (3) add "an enemy of the Republic, a blasphemer of Christ, a disbeliever in God, with no respect for matrimony or motherhood."[11] (4) ...a psychiatrist who characterized Chambers as a "psychopathic personality" and "a pathological liar."[12]

WP:ATTFAQ refers to "obsolete and deprecated" sources. Venona evidence makes all this obsolete and deprecated. Nonetheless, in absense of any verifiable citations to discredit Chamber's testimony against Hiss, Wikipedia editors still resort to Hiss's obsolete and deprecated slanders cause they simply will not give up on a losing cause. Now you know why Conservapedia was founded. RobS 16:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Blah

Scorpionman's dead! I killed him! Now I come for you! Beware, David! Hahahahaha! CroMagnonMan 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

^This is what I have to deal with...Cyber-killing is a new term for me; I hope to find out how he did such a thing. Personally, I love how vandals sometimes make our site look more intelligent than it (already) is. --<<-David R->> 18:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

I saw your comment and I'll try to avoid talking with those blockheads (although, being a person of short temper (ashamedly) I find it quite difficult) Scorpionman 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk Page

Whoops!!! I thought I had. My apologies. Thanks for catching that.

No problem. --<<-David R->> 18:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible vandal

I suggest we take the guy at his word and prosecute him, as he dared us. Karajou 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Go ahead, please.

Yeah, that'd be great. Did you at least get a little chuckle at the wombat edit? Bush2008 19:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I certainly appreciated it --BB2 20:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

<!-- I dared you --!>

Yeah, I don't mind. It is, after all, what he asked for. Were all of his accounts blocked? I thought I got about five or six of them. Haha, obviously he knows how to use the HTML comment tag: "<!-- I dared you --!>" Unfortunately for him, I do too. Obviously, it was BB2 above that added that comment. --<<-David R->> 21:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Block EditGenius

This is the content he posted: "Terrorists are Muslim radicals bent on destroying America. They are determined to kill Americans becuase they hate our freedom. Terrorists are free of moral restraint and will use any unholy means to murder and maim."

Now, he may be right about a lot of that, but its a rant and not a good article. Maybe a strong warning?--Dave3172 22:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok. I'll give him a warning. --<<-David R->> 22:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You know, I think that sounded a lot like a silly parody of Christianity. You know, he made that comment to try and represent conservatives as intolerant bigots who say things like that. Check this article on Uncyclopedia. Very amusing. Scorpionman 14:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

thay are ignorant nationalist bigiots for your information

Your comments on my userpage

QED on what caused them, eh? Ninj4 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not familiar with QED. If you'll explain it, I will be glad to answer your question. --<<-David R->> 19:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

quod erat demonstrandum or "QED" basically means "quite proven", which does seem to prove her point about Americans not knowing anything beyond their own borders. The phrase is well known in England.

Last Block

Yup ^-^ Didn't really wanna do it cause I feel he will turn out to be a vandal, but I figured he deserved a chance.--Elamdri 12:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We can always block him for good. Good job! --<<-David R->> 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On some of the topics dealing with the Gods/Goddesses of the old Norse Pantheon, I changed the terms mythology to religion, because quite frankly, those of us who follow the old norse traditions are still around. If these continue to be refered to as myth, why don't you consider changing articles refering to all religious figures as myth as well, just to be fair to all people of all faiths. I'm not trying to cause an argument, I merely want to keep things fair around here.

What merited a banning threat from you?

What did I write that was so factually inaccurate? It would also be helpful if you pointed out where I violated these commandments. - Mark

Your changes to the United States of America article were purely opinionated. They were not based on fact. I believe we have a commandment about that? --<<-David R->> 22:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

That user has been permanently blocked.--Aschlafly 22:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

O ok. --<<-David R->> 22:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Dino article help

I considerably beefed up the dinosaur article. I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists. I protected the article until they agreed to do that. Another Sysop User:Niandra unlocked the article. I would appreciate your support. Conservative 14:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

You know why I unlocked the article, it is stated in the summary description. It was incredibly rude of you to lock it back up within 15 minutes. niandra 14:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Re: block threat

sorry about the opinions, i followed the tone set by the first paragraph. if you want to keep opinion out of it, fine, but stop "fixing" the aftermath bit on the 100 dollar fine. he wasn't charged due to a technicality. that isn't an opinion

"commandments". hilarious. gotta love this site.

Ok. Provide a acceptable citation for the fine issue and I will leave it. --<<-David R->> 20:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Questions

One, if someone tries to be helpful and tries to incorporate accurate information into the site, why do you block them for an infinite amount of time? And two, if your goal is accuracy, wouldn't you want intelligent people?

Ok. First, I have two questions for you: When have I blocked someone because they tried to incorporate accurate information into the site? When did I say I didn't want intelligent people on this site? You are coming at me with these questions that don't really seem to pertain to me at all...If you would address my questions, I am sure I'll be able to respond with a satisfying answer to yours. --<<-David R->> 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

For example, the scientific theory article.

Mr. Pony

I find that what he is doing is not vandalism but rather an addition of AD. It might sound stupid but it will allow Conservapedia to become more encyclopedic. Prove me wrong if what he is doing is in direct violation of a rule. Also if you will allow him to do this, make sure he posts AD in the correct locations, not after actual names of events. --Eiyuu Kou 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I have seen what he is doing. He is adding AD to dates that cannot be determined as otherwise. Dates in reference to Andrew Jackson do not need AD. He is most probably making sarcastic edits in light of our example of wikipedia bias page which contains the bias they have against AD and BC. Future edits like this from him will result in blocking. If he will put AD in places where it is appropriate and cannot be taken as mockery, then I will certainly not block him. --<<-David R->> 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In an unrelated topic, would I be able to give warnings to users who have vandalized a page or more? --Eiyuu Kou 22:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course. If the vandalism contains obscenity, immediate blocking should occur. But warnings for minor vandalism is appropriate. And I DO give warnings in those cases, just for future notice. --<<-David R->> 22:50, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Are there any warning templates? If so can you post them on my user talk for easy access? --Eiyuu Kou 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia article

Please see the discussion at Talk:Conservapedia... Feel free to semi-protect or fully protect the article, but it has a number of backlinks expecting to go to a page describing the wiki, rather than showing the wiki itself (much like the Wikipedia page briefly describes Wikipedia, rather than redirecting to Wikipedia's main page). --Interiot 22:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

ousting threat

you said i removed some quotations from the scopes article. honestly i don't remember doing it, but if i did i probably felt that they weren't relevant enough to the article. parts of it were getting a little too detailed for an encyclopedia article.

if you could be more specific next time, i'd appreciate it. many thanks.

Why are you threatening to block me?

I apologize for not writing a complete sentence--it was not intentional. Man, I haven't had to apologize for that since grade school. Flippin 16:42, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It's no problem. If you can make a conscious effort to write full sentences, you will not be blocked. We just cannot have fragment articles hanging around. --<<-David R->> 16:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Protection?

Reason for protecting your talk page? Don't mean to be hostile, but it seems rather odd to lock the only means of communications that regular users can have with a sysop. --Hojimachong^talk 23:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry...I meant to only have it up for when we had a sudden influx of vandals. Then I forgot to unprotect. My bad. --<<-David R->> 09:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

If you have time, please do a project for me:

• Visit this list of protected pages
• Place the {{protected}} template on each page's talk page.

Thanks! --Ed Poor 10:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No problem --<<-David R->> 10:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Please use {{protected by}} instead!

Like {{protected by|MountainDew}} instead of {{protected}} --Ed Poor 10:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ughh. Fine. :) BTW, the new, shorter, and hopefully improved template is {{protect|David R}}:

{{protect|David R}}

David, my idea about marking talk pages with {{protect}} or {{protected}} got out of hand. Let's hold off on any further use, pending some kind of agreement about this. --Ed Poor 12:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I truly do not understand why this template is causing conflict. It is simply a marker. But I had not planned to add it to any more pages anyway, partly, due to the fact that I finished the list. What is this disagreement about? --<<-David R->> 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

censorship?

David, this edit has censored two of my comments in a way that has left my sentences incomplete. The remaining sentences are incomplete and make me look like I don't have a strong grasp of English. They should not have been modified without you also noting that you have censored my language. Perhaps you could help to find family-friendly language for describing the best way to not need to consider having an abortion? --Scott 11:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, Scott. My comp did that without me knowing. You could write the same words; I don't think I will have to edit that talk page again. Unfortunately I cannot do it myself as it will just remove it when I save. :( --<<-David R->> 11:21, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Your computer needs to stay away from Talk:Homosexuality, too.[2] --Scott 11:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

After having cleaned up nine more cases (only went back in history far enough to cover your protect-template tour), I think you REALLY need to disable what your computer is doing there. I fear that your other edits from long ago messed up quite a few pages in what I'd call subtle vandalism (though you didn't mean to do it, of course). Until you find and disable it, PLEASE check the diffs you create and leave a visible alert somewhere if your computer censored stuff so people can restore the damage. --Sid 3050 14:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm about to get banned for helping you

Check it out at User_talk:Sid_3050#Stubs, might be worth a good chuckle. ;) --Sid 3050 20:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm very sorry for your situation, but I can't see how you can blame me. How did you help me? And how did I get you banned? Who banned you? If there is anyone to blame, it is those who jumped to conclusions when they saw the edits. And trust me, I'm not "chuckling"... --<<-David R->> 12:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Trust me, I wasn't blaming you (and I still am not). I had just figured that - if you had been online in time - you could've chimed in to help and clarify things before they spun out of control. But that's old news by now, so never mind. --Sid 3050 12:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

At the moment, I am editing your talk page to explain my part in the story. I don't know if it will help, but I believe I owe it to you. --<<-David R->> 12:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You don't owe me anything, but still, thanks for any sort of clarification - either on my page or TK's. :) --Sid 3050 12:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Just read it. Thank you kindly for the clear and concise explanation :) --Sid 3050 12:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)