User talk:TerryH

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

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Administrative Office

The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, et cetera, here.--TerryH^Talk 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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

Templates

Terry,

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

Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Exterrestrial Life

Extraterrestrial life is an excellent article. If you are interested in pursuing this topic more, I recommend that you read Alien Intrusion. I'm certain that you will enjoy it. Philip J. Rayment 05:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Provenance of Biblical criticism article

Due to the similarity of Biblical criticism and CreationWiki's article, I think you should add a note to the talk page detailing its provenance.

Something along the lines of "This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on this version of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work." Dpbsmith 14:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, but instead of using the Talk page, I left it at the bottom of the article itself, in its own section.--TerryH^Talk 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Shuvuuia

Was this animal (listed here) a dinosaur or just a flightless bird? I can't tell...Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 10:34, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Nor can I, because someone has scrubbed the page completely.--TerryH^Talk 10:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I put a capital "D" in "Dinosaur". That's what's so irritating; you capitalize one letter and it won't direct you to the page!!! I've changed the link; you can follow it again. It's a small "d". Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 14:32, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Found it. The abstract makes that animal just another flightless bird. BTW, I repaired the reference to make it look more professional.--TerryH^Talk 16:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Mike Riddle claims it was a dinosaur. Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 17:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, he ought to read the reference then.

Alvarezsaurids (Shuvuuia and its allies) are either a lineage of birds or are a lineage phylogenetically close to them.

It couldn't be any clearer.--TerryH^Talk 17:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why do all theropods have hollow bones then? That would almost certainly relate them to birds. Scorpion^{Tell me what you think} 14:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you

thank you for rewriting my pathetic article on sherlock holmes. But did holmes really "love" irene adler?Bohdan

Dr. Watson seemed to think he did. Holmes himself was far too reticent to declare this openly.

Which is a tribute to Conan Doyle's iron point-of-view discipline: you never get inside the head of Sherlock Holmes.

I especially wanted to set the copyright record straight, to show where matters currently stand. A lot of authors have tried to incorporate Sherlock Holmes into their stories, and those who do, need to know that somebody still owns some rights to that character. The "Copyright" reference tells whom to contact, and how.--TerryH^Talk 09:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Proposed Block Policy....your question

• It is as simple as the carrot and the stick.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to impose administrative sanctions on others without at times seeming to be arbitrary or arrogant. A person will see such actions as they do, and "facts" will not change their mind. To be limited in one's response to undesirable actions, is to tie one hand behind your back from the start. I say this because as it is now worded, so much is totally subjective, and it doesn't preclude the type of Sysop reversals of another's actions we have been seeing. "Third Party" Sysop means what? The "YEC" Sysop faction? The "Liberal" faction? Conflict resolution is also subjective. When a Sysop's actions are reversed, that erodes their authority and leads users to "shop" for like-minded Sysops. This undermines the project as a whole. You can always reach me via IM or email here, if you would like to have a dialog. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Evo2

Hey TerryH, I saw this a while back, and I want to assure that I wasn't actually being sarcastic. I sometimes forget that text doesn't carry the same inflections as spoken word. I do really think it is a bad idea, since the only thing worse for the community than having sub-par articles (Theory of evolution) is having two sub-pwar articles (what Evo2 would be, completely pro-evo, for a long time). Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks! --Hojimachong^talk 17:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome, and I accept your clarification.--TerryH^Talk 17:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

RE Private

OK, Now what? --CPAdmin1 23:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- United States

- Columbine High School massacre

- World War II

- Global warming

- World War I

- Adolf Hitler

- Battle of Thermopylae

- Canada

- William Shakespeare

- The Holocaust

- Abraham Lincoln

- Jesus

- Vietnam War

- China

What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles? Clearly this are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. Conservative 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Link correction

Thanks for correcting the link. [1] --Ed Poor 17:17, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome.--TerryH^Talk 17:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks

for blocking Alfa papa. Wow, those vandals sure work quickly! --Wikinterpreter^talk?

You're welcome. Have you finished rolling back the messes he made?--TerryH^Talk 17:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Just about. That should be all, although *** and co are going to be with us for a looong time, I imagine. Oh, and he's trying to take us hostage, along the lines of 'de-sysop conservative or else'. --Wikinterpreter^talk?

Here is something I put on the main page

Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive Conservative 21:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Help Requested

I've been editing the article on Geocentric theory but my work is repeatedly being deleted and reverted, and I and my views have been insulted several times on the discussion page there. Please could you give me some advice and assistance. Thanks Mmeelliissssaa 09:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Vietnam War

I disagree with this. The U.S. objectives were not met in the Korean War, and we most certainly did not win the War of 1812, both of which occurred before Vietnam. GodlessLiberal 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

In the War of 1812, we were playing defense, and defense only. We won because the British failed to take us back into their Empire.

As to Korea, those were not US objectives; they were UN objectives. Make sure you know what those stated objectives were.--TerryH^Talk 19:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, you're right on Korea. But in 1812 we attempted to take over Canada. Needless to say, we failed at that. And it was us who declared war, so I wouldn't call it defense. GodlessLiberal 19:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter

Why do you object to including actual quotes by Ann Coulter in an article about her? --PF Fox 19:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Because they cannot fail to have been taken out of context. Besides, I happen to know that at least one of your quotes was from another book entirely. A book that I have read, by the way.

If you're going to quote anyone, then give the full context. Strange as it might seem to you, Ann Coulter has a reason for everything she says. When, for example, four widows start publicly those who would inhibit all efforts to prevent the murderers of their husbands from murdering other women's husbands, then they deserve the heaping of a certain opprobrium on their heads. The way you did it, made it sound as though the objects of Ann Coulter's criticisms were absolutely and entirely innocent. Which they are absolutely, positively not.--TerryH^Talk 19:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

By all means then, lets add the context and allow readers to decide whether the widows in question deserved to be called "harpies" and that Ann Coulter was appropriate when she implied they ENJOYED their husbands deaths and their husbands were trying to divorce them anyway. What the hey, let's make sure we've provided the context by putting in "context" like:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."

any objections? --PF Fox 19:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

notice

Please tell others about: Conservapedia:New Sysops Training Page Conservative 22:05, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Monster

I've got another article written on a Frank Peretti book: Monster. I need some help with the analysis at the end, so any contributions you could make would be welcome. Tell me what you think (of course, if you haven't read the book, you should read it first before reading my summary) Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 23:00, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Bible ref2 template

Terry,

Your new template {{Bible ref2}} doesn't work. You have copied {{Bible ref}} and modified it to not display the "verses" parameter, but the code still expects the "verses" parameter and still tries incorporating it into the URL passed to BibleGateway, with the result that BibleGateway can't resolve it and doesn't display the requested chapter(s).

Also, instead of creating minor variations of templates, it is better if the one template covers several similar situations. That is, it would be better to modify {{Bible ref}} to make the "verses" parameter optional (or even better, combine {{Bible quote}} with {{Bible ref}} and {{Bible ref2}}, if that is practicable).

Do you know how to make "verses" optional, or would you like me to do that for you?

Either way, I suggest you change all your uses of {{Bible ref2}} to {{Bible ref}}, so that they will work once the latter is altered to accommodate that.

Philip J. Rayment 23:12, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Philip:

I will do that, as soon as someone activates the #if directive in template processing. Right now, that #if directive does not work. I had a version of Bible ref that made the verses and version parameters optional--and the processing of the #if directive assumed that the condition was always true, and it blew up every time. Which is why I have always had to specify a version, even though I wanted a default.

Let me know, then, when the #if parameter is repaired.--TerryH^Talk 12:59, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

It's been working ever since I first tried it, which was a while ago now, but it must have been some time since you tried it. Philip J. Rayment 21:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the documentation of the template to use our standard format.

Did you actually need to use the #if: syntax? For example, instead of {{#if:{{{language|}}}|{{{language}}}|english}}, wouldn't {{{language|english}}} have done the job?

Also, I think we can get around the "1 Corinthians" limitation, but I'd like to see the #if: bit cleaned up first, if they can be.

Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I've compacted the code a bit; I believe that it still works. I was going to use the #switch: parser function to convert the books with spaces into no-space versions, but the list would have to have been so long (especially if allowing for both Arabic and Roman numerals in the names) that I didn't feel that it was worth it. A better solution would be to use the #replace: string function, but that doesn't seem to be installed on Conservapedia (yet?). Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

What is with these people?!

What is wrong with them?! I mean come on! Get a life!--Will N. 18:48, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

If it's about what I think it is, then the less said about it--even on this talk page--the better.--TerryH^Talk 18:49, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Lol, I dont get you. I mean don't these vandals have something else to do, a job maybe? Just silliness.--Will N. 18:51, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Maybe this is their job. But certain piles are best left unstirred, if you catch my drift.--TerryH^Talk 18:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Silly job then, lets just drop it.--Will N. 18:58, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

• I sure am not catching any drift at all. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 19:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Idolatry? A Question.

"This user believes in the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone and that all other belief systems are forms of idolatry."

Does that include Judaism? Just curious. Best, EnFrancaisSVP 15:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Judaism is an important exception, for two reasons:

1. Most of the founding documents of Judaism are part of the foundation of Christianity.
2. The making of idols has never been part of Hebrew worship.--TerryH^Talk 16:33, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

sorry

I just checked my email now. looks like you handled it though. Bohdan 23:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia

Why should we bother having a conservative encyclopedia if people are going to callously mock it like this? It's crap! I can't believe what idiots these people are. Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 19:26, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

In their mocking, they only make themselves look stupid. That article is a case in point. I'm still laughing--yes, laughing--at their silliness.

Pay them no heed, Scorpion. Eventually, no one will even remember them.--TerryH^Talk 20:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Of course, there's nothing to prevent me from writing a parody of my own...[2] nobody listens though. That's they're way. Heck, on the talk page for the article I previously linked, they're even talking about vandalizing Conservapedia! That certainly doesn't do them credit! Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 23:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Freedom

It was all crap, for a long time. I made a new start, but I wanted a part relating to the Bible. Would you take a quick look, and add/delete any parts not on firm Biblical footing? Of course any other additions would also be appreciated! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks, Terry! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I just sent you a important email

I just sent you a important email. Due to the sensitivity of the important material I sent it to you privately. Conservative 21:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

small request

I sent the email I sent you to about 5 or so other key people that I know are actively involved in Conservapedia. I couldn't email some important users as their email is not active (for example, sharon) Can you email blast the other sysops regarding the info I sent you since you seem to know how to email blast using the system? Conservative 21:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

email is not working so here is the reply

Dear Terry,

I think the main point is that we are very shallow on footnotes. If we are going to be a concise encyclopedia it is all the more important we have footnotes and external links so people can get more info. Right now, our encyclopedia is rather unusable except for certain hot button "culture war" issues like creationism vs. evolution, abortion, etc. Citing also forces people to put down more reliable info. Sooner of later the liberals are going to do a study on Conservapedia in terms of accuracy and it is important we fix the problem now.

Do you approve of the use of the template?

Sincerely,

Conservative 21:24, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do. Especially since it puts the page into a category that everyone--particularly every Sysop--can see, in case they might be able to help out with citations.--TerryH^Talk 22:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

• Conservative, as I told you via email, I forwarded on your complete email, which varies from the above a great deal. TerryH now has your email, and comments. Please stop running around making more confusion. I am not in favor of even more templates cluttering articles. I would support adding them to a category, that would still appear on a page that we can all see, however. One hopes you have finally learned the lesson of communication. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 22:17, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Apartheid -Sharpeville

Thanks. Appreciated. Guitarplayer 22:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

You're welcome--and that's part of what a Sysop is here for. To some, we are policemen--but to others, we are Wiki editing experts. (And sometimes we are online research consultants.)

Did you see how I created the categories? Always preface the category name with the word "Category:"--TerryH^Talk 09:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Peretti

Have you read Frank Peretti at all? Right now his article on this encyclopedia's only been touched by me, so if there's anything you could add it would be very helpful. I'm also needing help on my Monster article, so if you've ever read it I need some help with the analysis at the end. Thanks Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 22:50, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Nice block

Nice block at 11:17am ET. You beat me to it!--Aschlafly 11:18, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Deficit spending, etc.

- "and that last statement you made, alleging that Ronald Reagan virtually invented deficits"

My edit did not say anything of the sort. There has always been national debt, off and on, and certainly you are correct in reflecting that FDR did engage in some large-scale deficit spending. Interestingly, he was very opposed to the idea, despite the urgings of economist John Keynes to use it as a tool to end the Depression. FDR had originally run for President criticizing Hoover for engaging in deficit spending, and he later decided to pull the plug from the New Deal when he thought the Depression was ending in 36, causing the "Roosevelt recession," which basically returned the country to the depths of the Depression again. It is an undeniable fact, however, that the debt has climbed dramatically since Reagan's administration. I can back this up if you give me time to find a source, rather than jumping on me for every unsourced edit. I've been clicking around this site for a while and have found very few articles that contain any sourcing at all. Obviously you are doing the right thing by demanding a source, but I do have the facts straight, at least this time. Kristkrispies 18:17, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, your edit did. You said, or implied, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was reluctant to engage in deficit spending, and that Ronald Reagan is solely to blame for any rise in deficit spending since he took office.

Tell you what: find your source and post it here, in reply to this message. I will check it out, and perhaps ask for assistance.--TerryH^Talk 18:22, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, he didn't QUITE say that; he said that deficits have risen since the Reagan administration, which only indirectly implicates him. DanH 18:31, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I very clearly said that FDR was among the people who are philisophically opposed to the idea that the government should have debt (strict constructionism), and he absolutely was reluctant to engage in deficit spending. He did of course decide later that it was a necessary evil. That would be worth mentioning too, I just hadn't gotten to it yet. I did not in any way state that Reagan was "solely to blame" for the rise in deficit spending. I just said "during (his) administration...." That's a span of 8 years, not a form of blame.

Here are some numbers from the treasury dept. As you can see, the debt more than doubled during the 80's. It also rose dramatically during each major war, of course, so it would be worth mentioning that wartime presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and George W. Bush) have engaged in some heavy spending.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo2.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Make of it what you will. Kristkrispies 18:44, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I make of it, just this: an article on the national debt needs to have the proper perspective. Talking about the growth of the debt during one administration is all very well, but it doesn't do the subject justice.

And I'm not convinced that Franklin D. Roosevelt was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in The National Experience, said that Roosevelt introduced the idea to Congress, and had to overcome Republican Party opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--TerryH^Talk 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

The proper perspective or an unbiased perspective? Everything I've said is true. If the facts are incomplete, then we should be adding the necessary facts and not removing them. This site will never get anywhere like this. Here's the very first hit I got off a Google search for Keynes begging FDR to increase deficit spending, which he didn't commit to doing on a large scale until we entered WWII:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html

It's not as thorough a source as I'd like, but it at least suffices to show that this is common knowledge. It also suggests that maybe you should give another editor the benefit of the doubt before reverting and criticizing so quickly. Or maybe you can do a quick google search and learn something for yourself, rather than assuming you know the truth based on one incomplete fact from a single source? We're looking at two sides of the same truth about FDR; why assume that just because FDR did engage in deficit spending that he was not at some point in his career politically and philisophically opposed to it? That's using bias in place of fact. That's not the purpose of Conservapedia as far as I know, but, again, I'm new here, so correct me if I'm wrong. Kristkrispies 20:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Time magazine has a motive for misrepresentation. These days, I don't trust any mainstream-media source without corroboration. Just think "Killian Memoranda" and you'll understand why. (True, that was CBS' gaffe, and not that of Time-Warner. But I have reason to believe that the only reason why Time didn't get burned like that is that CBS beat them to the brick-wall punch.)

I'd have a lot more confidence, however, in a citation from FDR's own papers, or Keynes' papers, or dual citations from sites devoted to their memories.--TerryH^Talk 20:40, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Like I said, it's not a great source, but it is a source, and I'm not about to start thumbing through FDR's personal letters today. I think that demanding that level of primary source documentation would be a bit inconsistent with the content of this site as a whole, however, and also quite inconsistent with your standard for your own comments, such as your patent dismissal of anything printed in a certain major national publication. The fact is, I'm right, and I know it. If you don't want to put back my edits, then I'll just have to try contributing something else. Kristkrispies 20:53, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome

Thank you. --Marshall 16:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Selected as Judge for the Contest

TerryH, you've been selected by Team1 and Team2 to judge the upcoming contest, due to start Tuesday. Geo has also agreed to judge the contest.

Hope you can accept. Your professionalism and experience will be invaluable. In Christ, Aschlafly 01:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well. But you'll have to familiarize me once again with the object and rules of the game.--TerryH^Talk 06:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

That's great! The main page for the contest is here. ~ Sharon^Talk 06:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome as a Judge! I've created a new namespace that only Judges can access. I can't even access it. You might create a page in it like Judges:Contest (note that I cannot even create that page).--Aschlafly 12:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the welcome, fellow Judge Geo.Complain! 14:59, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Protect

I protected your talk page so the vandal won't vandalize it.--Beth^Talk2ME 10:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Evolution

Hi, Terry.

Have we pretty much decided on an editorial policy which asserts that no human evolution has taken place? This is the position held by 85% of Americans, i.e., the majority Creationist viewpoint.

If so, would it be wise (or practical) to have a series of article about why evolutionists keep promoting evolution? Or perhaps about what evidence they see in the fossil record that any evolution has taken place?

This might ruffle a few feathers, because Young Earth Creationists assert that the history of life on earth goes back less than 10,000 years - effectively denying the "mainstream" view of geology and biology about fossils. On the other hand, Old Earth Creationsts agree with geologists and biologists about the age of the Earth - as well as the extent of the history of life.

Is there a way to write about all this without offending our conservative writer base? (I'm not worried about offending liberals! ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:02, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

There shouldn't be a problem with writing such, by attributing the views to YECs. By the way, I've just tonight updated Old Earth Creationism with things that OECs won't like, but by attributing to the OECs themselves (for the most part). Philip J. Rayment 11:14, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Woah, Ed... where are you getting the "85% says no evolution has taken place? It would seem as though the 85% is the number that says at least some creation took place, with the number saying at least some evolution taking place being about 50-50. I'm using this poll. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 11:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not commenting on whether or not the figure is correct, but Ed did say "no human evolution", not "no evolution". Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Deletedpage

TerryH,

Please remember, when permanently protecting and deleting pages, protect and redirect to Conservapedia:Deletedpage (as opposed to using {{deletedpage}} on the page, as you currently are). Otherwise, the link to the main page will make it show up in [Special:Whatlinkshere/Main_Page this] log. We had a problem with obscene words showing up with this log earlier.

I think the best solution for this would to make contents of {{deletedpage}} changed to "#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]. I will go do this, but please let me know if you have any objections. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 11:25, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

No objections. In fact, that's the best possible solution.--TerryH^Talk 11:26, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Wait! Hoji, I hate to tell you, but all you've done now is to create a double redirect!--TerryH^Talk 11:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Aww, shucks. I'll go clean them up. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 12:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah, nevermind... I see somebody fixed it. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 12:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it--by reconnecting the double redirects, and then by removing the Main Page link from the text of Conservapedia:Deletedpage. Now the only way those pages show up are in the dead-end page list.--TerryH^Talk 13:32, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Birds

Wikipedia labels birds as reptiles, or at least they say that since birds supposedly evolved from "dinosaurs", that they count as reptiles. Now, I don't know about you but I think that's absolute BS. But one thing: what about all these China fossils they keep finding of dinosaurs with "branching integuments"? I hypothesize that many of these are probably just large birds that have been mistaken for dinosaurs with feathers. Come to think of it, it may be time for a redefining of the word "dinosaur". Dinosaurs are usually referring to large, reptilian animals, but now they think that some were feathered?? The fossils they find bear so much resemblence to birds that now many evolutionists are disputing whether or not they are true birds. Me, I think they're birds. The deinonychus is usually supposed to be a dinosaur, but what are the little filaments that are found on the fossils? Have deinonychus fossils been found anywhere else, without featheres? What would this mean? Probably, that either those fossils have been less well-preserved, or that the fossils in China are fakes, which is what I think. Of course, deinonychus may have been a large, ostrich-like animal. What do you think? Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 21:45, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

• I think you need to watch your foul language. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 22:39, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Are you TerryH? Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 18:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the sysop who admonished you nearly three weeks ago concerning your language was not I, but another sysop, TK. We are colleagues.

On the matter at hand, I am not familiar enough with the literature on feathered dinosaurs. I suspect, however, that we will find that they are birds. That birds are a "later class of mammal" than reptiles is only an assumption, which has its basis on nothing more than speculation.

BTW: you really ought to take down the "vote for Pedro" part of your signature.--TerryH^Talk 21:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Last user

AntnyGonzo...just what is with the arrogance of people who think they can come into CP and just try to ram what they want here? It was someone else's essay he tried to alter, and he couldn't care less how he did it or how the author felt about it. He's gone as a result. Karajou 19:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I noticed. I was about ready to block him myself. In fact, he reminded me very much of a certain user who kept altering my essay as I was writing it.--TerryH^Talk 19:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Scores

Just wondering if you know and could tell me the final scores of Team1 and Team2...Aschlafly and I are trying to figure out how close we came, and it would be a lot easier to just have the final numbers! Thanks, DeborahB. 17:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps

You last vandal was merely trying to archive the main page but got blocked before being able to finish his task? Just a thought. U2 22:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Don't give me that baloney. He wasn't even authorized to archive that page, and this was only his fourth contribution.--TerryH^Talk 22:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, chief, whatever you say Mister Sysop sir. I woulda thunk though, if he was going to blank the page he'da blanked the page and not left the last part in. U2 22:46, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

He was just being a wiseguy--as if to say that nobody but him had anything valuable to say. That kind of cockiness doesn't go over very well. Hint, hint.--TerryH^Talk 22:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yippie aye yo ki yay! The number one search engine in the United States ranks our theory of evolution article #5 out of all articles written on that subject

I just found out that the number one search engine in the United States ranks the Conservapedia Theory of evolution article #5 out of about 26 Million articles written on that subject. That is why the article is likely getting the traffic it is now getting.

Here is some background:

"Yahoo is considered the number one search engine above all other search engines. Yahoo search queries make up approximately 28% of all search engine traffic. And just in raw traffic reported by Alexa rankings, Yahoo! demolishes competitors such as Google and MSN." taken from : http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Yahoo-Optimization-Help/Search-Engines-and-Algorithms-Optimizing-for-Yahoo-Search-and-AltaVista/

I found out from Google Ad Words that the phrase "theory of evolution" is about the most popular term to find information about that subject. It is way more popular than the word "evolution". Here is www.google.com ad words: https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal

As you can see can see Yahoo ranks our "Theory of evolution" article #5: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=theory+of+evolution&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Conservative 18:45, 8 August 2007 (EDT)