--Joaquín Martínez 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --TerryH 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, et cetera, here.--TerryHTalk 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)Terry,
Instead of typing out
Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd
As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',
-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" -having political or social views favoring reform and progress -tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition -a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties -big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" -a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets -free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned User:66.212.16.194 for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--Tmcfulton 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)
That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--TerryHTalk 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST) You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--Tmcfulton 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. Karajou 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --AngryCommunist 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--TerryHTalk 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for reverting my edit to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, Gillespie 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Explain what? Do you deny it? Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public? In fact, Jimbo Wales is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened. If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--TerryHTalk 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. MatthewHopkins 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on Template:USState? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{!-}}. Thanks--IDuan 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--IDuan 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--IDuan 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--IDuan 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here ScorpionVote for Pedro 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)
Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. ScorpionVote for Pedro 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST) I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? ScorpionVote for Pedro 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST) Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) ScorpionVote for Pedro 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST) For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found this page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with this article, which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. Philip J. Rayment 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --HelpfultipsforTerryH 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)
Terry,
Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!
In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an old dog dinosaur new tricks.
Also, consider archiving those two pages.
You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.
By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.
Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.
Regards, -Hojimachong
Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the include directives with include_once directives. --MakeTomorrow 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--IDuan 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)
In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-PhoenixWright 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the threatening tone, here. In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-PhoenixWright 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.Jellyfish 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell
Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish. --TagoPagdaluhong 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. HelpJazz 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)(blush) Philip J. Rayment 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
300.2 million > 3.2 million [1] --Ed Poor Talk 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Could you please weigh in on the discussion here? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. Jinkas 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --DeanSa 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. Conservative 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. LChriosa 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard. They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached. I deleted a couple already. Your article on Machiavellianism was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes. If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --Ed Poor Talk 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT) They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? LChriosa 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).
This has manifested itself in the following forms:
-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children
-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley
-Skinheads are organizing against us
-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions
-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"
-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts
-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties
-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.
(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)
My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?
*Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GLA (talk)
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp
Terry,
Thought you might be interested in this story.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html
--Benp 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Terry, you came to my Talk page and demanded that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."
My response:
1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.
In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you: 1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly. 2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.
Thank you. Aggrieved 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a month instead of a day. Wandering 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--TerryHTalk 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also Special:Protectedtitles for a list of what has been salted already. --KevinM 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --KevinM 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
shrug* Thanks. Jinxmchue 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)Thanks for the correction. Memory 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --DeanStalk 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.
Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on Template:Mainpageright and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --DeanStalk 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) Markr 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was not what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--TerryHTalk 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT) yes thats even better Markr 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT) That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --BRichtigen 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I noticed we had a category:Parolees a few weeks ago when I was browsing the Conservapedia:Maintenance page. Since User:Saxplayer is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -Foxtrot 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write Guard dog, but this block reason just cracked me up:
Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dogCan you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to vandalize.
Again, sorry for bugging you, but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.
Thanks, and have a good day!
Samd 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"? And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to vandalize when it actually says "vandalism"? Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT) Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. Samd 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT) I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. Philip J. Rayment 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.
Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --BRichtigen 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-) I was editing Philipp Lenard, when this bizarre Hitlermania started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-) But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --BRichtigen 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)
Thanks for this, although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. BrianCo 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited Talk:Main Page twice and Talk:Barack Obama was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! WesleySHello! 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --Ed Poor Talk 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --Benp 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)
TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called Template:Bible Versions on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at User:AddisonDM. 29 December 2008
Glory to God in highest heaven, Who unto man His Son hath given; While angels sing with tender mirth, A glad new year to all the earth.
~Martin Luther
--?K/Talk! 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --JamesDW 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)
Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --?K/Admin/Talk 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Please check your email conservative 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, JY23 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)
Any help you could offer as far as this article Creation vs. evolution debate would be appreciated. conservative 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the music talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! JDWpianist 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
The bot is going berserk. Corry 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) ThanksDaniel1212 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)
Your edits to Epistle of Jude (Translated) are a great start to this week!--Andy Schlafly 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),
I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur. Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.
JohnFraiser 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
Great block and revert, Terry!--Andy Schlafly 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)
and Marry Christmas!
--Joaquín Martínez 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)
Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)
Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! DouglasA 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)
Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. DouglasA 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)
Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --ChrisY 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--Andy Schlafly 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--Andy Schlafly 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)Terry,
Would you be interested in writing the following articles:
The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project down the pike. conservative 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Hi Terry,
Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.
Peace, Huw. Human 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See here for the latest accusation. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. MaxFletcher 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!
Terry, I have a question for you.
Question: What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution campaign?
Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and global atheism is currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day![2] :) Please pay special note to the words currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day. :)
A Question evolution! campaign online community is forming.[3] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click HERE for details.
Conservative 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST) I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.
There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. Ayzmo :) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)
American young earth creationism increased in the last two years - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!.[4]
It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of evolutionism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[5][6] Conservative 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
Could you please check Category:Speedy_deletion_candidates? Thanks. AugustO 12:56, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic for Conservapedia talk pages:
I have tried to create a CNAV account with the username GregG. I was told that my password would be sent to the e-mail address I provided on the registration form, which is my e-mail address. I never got that message. I also tried to have a new e-mail sent at least once (yesterday), but still I received nothing. Could you take a look into this? GregG 11:51, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
I just sent a message to the e-mail I have on you. Now so far I haven't gotten any delivery-failure notices. But if you don't get a message within the next three hours, then you must have put in the wrong e-mail address.http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=997411#ArbCom_bans_the_chairman_of_Wikimedia_UK – This news might interest you. --Michaeldsuarez 15:03, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ – Fox News is now paying attention. --Michaeldsuarez 14:02, 1 August 2012 (EDT)Creationist benchmark is hit and exceeded in the United States
Creation Ministries International breaks through key USA key benchmark! The first Question evolution! sound barrier has been breached. Watch the campaign grow faster and faster and faster. USA! USA! USA! Conservative 05:19, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
--AugustO 19:24, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Please see Talk:Main Page#"Obamacare Dead on Arrival" -- very poor judgment in my opinion. Thanks, GregG 20:10, 2 January 2013 (EST)
Really think boston story should be on top. Dvergne 07:52, 19 April 2013 (EDT)
It might be a good idea to make sure that when you link to articles from headlines that link to your blog (which is a whole other matter entirely, also having issues commenting on your stories, can you look into it) that the links actually link to an article. I have had to fix this up a number of times and would have thought a wiki user of your length of time would make sure this sort of issues do not occur. Dvergne 08:14, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
The homosexuality article seems to be a bit broken. The table of contents is in the wrong position. Could you or another sysop please fix this ? Also I had an Idea re article protection. Would it be possible to protect some article so that only those users with edit and sysop rights edit them. This would allow those pages to be edited and improved by trusted and known users whilst stopping liberal trolls and thugs pushing their POV and vandalizing them. I think that something like this would help improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia as it would allow for updates, improvements, tweaks and general formatting improvements to be made to our most popular articles Dvergne 10:45, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
I have been having a few issues with leaving comments on your blog, could you please look into it ? Dvergne 10:50, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
Dear Mr. Hurlbut,
This section pertains to this CNAV article by Mr. Purpura. He writes, in relevant part,
TeamNJ candidates will sponsor legislation that will make it compulsory that photo-identification is required prior to casting any vote. Let it be known, the Supreme Court of these United States has ruled that voter identification is by law, Constitutional. You can be sure the Democrats will never accept voter identification because if they did, they would never win another election.Multiple voting has become commonplace in many Democratic dominated urban areas across the various states. Do you think NJ is any different?
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (2008), the Supreme Court analyzed Indiana's 2005 voter ID law against a facial challenge. The challengers did not present evidence of the hardships that would be created by voter ID, as other challengers to other voter ID laws have done (see Frank v. Walker [Wisconsin] and Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). The Supreme Court did not say that any voter ID law would automatically satisfy constitutional requirements.
Next, some Democrats have supported voter ID, even photo voter ID. Illinois has a law dating back to 2005 requiring early voters to present photo ID. Rhode Island has a voter ID law that passed with Democratic support. [7]. North Carolina Democrats proposed their own voter ID bill this year. [8]
Further, Democrats have won elections with voter ID. Leaving aside the numerous congressional and state elections won by Democrats in stict voter ID states, Obama won Indiana in 2008 and New Hampshire and Rhode Island in 2012.
Finally, I know of only one instance of multiple voting in a "Democratic dominated urban area[]" (the Cincinnati poll worker who allegedly voted for Obama six times [9]). Although I think one instance of fraud is one too many, I trust that Mr. Purpura has evidence that multiple voting is "commonplace" in urban areas and in New Jersey. I would like to see such evidence for myself so that I can evaluate it and see how the benefits and costs of various forms of voter ID compare.
In conclusion, if you could please post this on CNAV as a comment (as I still have not been able to get my CNAV account to work) or otherwise forward it to Mr. Purpura, I would appreciate it. Thanks, GregG 11:08, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
Hi, Terry. Is it Eric Snowden or Edward Snowden? I might want to merge mine into yours if I got the name wrong. --Ed Poor Talk 22:28, 10 June 2013 (EDT)
0 comments:
Post a Comment