User talk:Christopedia

British Isles

I'm confident something will work out. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way to cookie crumbles. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Foot: Let's not just scream 'hoax'

I doubt it's a hoax and hopefully I'll be confirmed in my optimism in a couple of hours. Finger crossed.

A couple of points, if I may…

The bigfoot costume everyone is referring to is a fairly convincing article in itself but aside from a few similarities in the nose, the head of the one in the chest freezer and that of the costume are not that similar. (I copied those images of the beast that were available at Cryptomundo early this morning before the site became unavailable)

Secondly, those who are screaming ‘hoax’ may well be right but their enthusiasm towards the negative is as revealing as those who are automatic believers. Everyone is a photo expert these days and anything that is in photo form, to their way of thinking, is a photoshopped hoax… which may be what they do when they’re not dissing everyone else’s images.

Bearing in mind that they have already gone on the record via Fox News and have invited the ‘credentialed press’, anything less than the real deal is going to leave them an unemployable and strictly hands off commodity. That’s a pretty steep price to pay for 15 minutes of fame.

Finally, the telling will be in who is allowed to examine the body… or if it doesn’t mysteriously disappear before that can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not screaming hoax, I desperately do not want this to be a hoax, and I agree if this is a hoax those responsible have acted incredibly foolish, their behavior makes no sense at all and it will probably be the end of their careers. It would certainly be for their reputations and criminal charges may even be persued.

I don't think Biscardi himself is an intentional hoaxer, more a naive character who has been the victim of being hoaxed on more than one occasion. I was very excited at first at this "Georgia Bigfoot" story, I have gone from thinking its probably true to probably not, but the truth is of course that I, like everyone else just doesn't know if it is or not yet. We can only use our own judgement on what we has been shown and revealed so far, which is admitedly not that much and certainly a possibilty to have been faked.

I think the only picture that has been produced so far does look very fake and does bare a strong (if not identical) resembalance to the bigfoot costume that it has been compared against. Still, it's not as if we know what a bigfoot is supposed to look like is it? It could still be the real deal, which I sincerely hope it is.

I was intending to stay up and watch the conference myself but I fell asleep (it was on at 5AM in Australia!), but from what Wikipedia is reporting at the Bigfoot article's page, I didn't miss much and litle new information was revealed, which is entirely as I expected.I guess we are all going to have to wait just that little bit longer before we know the truth and what exactly this thing is one way or the other. Christopedia (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Weez, wouldn't ya know it. The guys said to have found the corpse, decided not to bring it to a news conference (claiming it might get stolen). Those guys couldn't call their dog & make it believable. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99.99% certain this is nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Christopedia (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% certain, it's a hoax. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 110% certain its a hoax and i'm 100% certain Bigfoot will never be found because Bigfoot doesn't exist. Christopedia (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast

British city? No. Britain is the island and does not include NI. If anything it's a United Kingdom city if you want to be fussy. I've rolled back your edit. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All cities within the United Kingdom, tend to be called British cities. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, not that there is many left now sadly in the ever shrinking Empire. Christopedia (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Severn

Hello Christo. If you know of anybody with the proper digging machinery? by all means, ask them to lengthen the river. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to I Kissed a Girl has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. «JavierMC»|Talk 05:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may think it's a blatant attempt, but unless a third party verifiable reference tells us so, we can not add it to a wikipedia article because it is too POV. That is why I reverted the addition. You'd have to have sources that states it is an attemp, add it to the article, then add the link.--«JavierMC»|Talk 06:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GD's page

Hello Chris. I've removed your postings on my User-main page; feel free to 're-add' them on my User-talk page. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopedia?

In any way related to the rascist website christopedia.us? Uh-oh...--98.227.91.32 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it racist. Someone used the "N" word on there and they were banned. It may not not very PC, to put it mildly, but racist is such an overused word nowadays, it has lost much of its well intended original meaning. Christopedia (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South West England

I've reverted your changes, to South West (UK region), which had not been discussed or agreed with anyone else. Happy to discuss this if you wish, but please do not revert again without first gaining approval from other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check?

It's not surprising that someone who identifies themselves with christopedia.us would like to defend the existence of Bigfoot, a monarchy in New Zealand, and (of course) Christ. The common thread between these three things is that none of them exist in reality. Perhaps you could contribute your fictions to a more suitable site?

202.150.117.63 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot remains unproven, seems very unlikely that something like that could remain undetected by mainstream science for so long, but I think it is just about possible. I keep an open mind about its possible existance.

The New Zealand Monarchy exists just as much as the British Monarchy, yes it is a constitutional monarchy nowadays, rather than absolute, but I would support rolling back some of the so-called "reforms" of the last few decades and hundreds of years to give the Monarch some real actual power.

Whether you believe in Christ or not is a matter of personal faith, but most scholars at least agree that he did in fact exist! Christopedia.us may be a little er extreme at the moment, but it is a work in progress. It is trying to become more mainstream in outlook whilst not compromising it's belief in traditional Christian values. Yes, the site does take a traditional view of ALL subjects, including race, and it makes no apologises for that! It is not a hypocrite, choosing to take only a traditional conservative outlook on subjects that remain socially acceptable to do so. Traditional marriage for instance, was not something that was invented in the late 1960s.

Lastly, I realise this IS a liberal site. Wikipedia is not fooling anyone. Yes anyone can contribute, I have just as much right to contribute to this project that I feel is very worthwhole as anyone else, but most people editing here appear to be liberal leaning, they appear to be in the majority, so it is not surprisingly that liberal world view of things dominates this site. Taking all of this into consideration, my work here consists of reverting vandalism, making small updates, corrections to pages and adding any useful additional information that I can. More controversial, right wing editing, I leave that for Christopedia. That is the purpose of that site after all, to be in time, a real geniune conservative alternative to the great and mighty Wikipedia. Christopedia (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Christopedia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Christopedia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Christopedia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]