Talk:Ameriwiki

I love the logo! But in all seriousness, I think he should pick the Ststue of Liberty or the Liberty Bell as a logo. The American flag would make it too similar to CP.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Extreme Wingnuttery, Conservapedia and RationalWiki cats. Let's not jump the gun on AW by labelling them as wingnuts, the site was only founded 2 days ago. SJ ^Debaser 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

notability

My grandmother believes in a bunch of alternative medicine stuff and has an irrational hatred of anti-biotics. Can I write a mainspace article about her?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This ain't WP. Notability ain't a big deal. RW also has articles on ASK and Liberapedia, both non-notable wikis.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And even smaller and less notable Libertapedia. Let's burn mainspace, brxbrx!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's on Mission. But shouldn't you put this in the Saloon Bar?Civic Cat (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not working

Currently says:

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_PAAMAYIM_NEKUDOTAYIM, expecting T_NS_SEPARATOR in /home/wikkiic/public_html/w/extensions/EditCount/EditCount.php on line 206

Gotta love PHP's part-Hebrew error message. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh it's working again now. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikkii goes in those states. All those wikis there do. I would like to find a new host, but I don't have the funds to do so. So, I guess we're stuck with it.--George (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Colonel, a number of the edits you've made to this article are rather questionable:

• Though Ameriwiki is a Christian wiki, they have an article on an extremely minor religion.: As GeorgeF explained (on that article's talk page), while Ameriwiki does adopt a pro-Christian perspective overall, it is not opposed to having articles on other religions. I actually suggested to George he might want to add some criticisms from a conservative Christian perspective, he did not think that was necessary. In terms of notability, say what you want about Maratreanism, it is open to Ameriwiki (and other sites) to adopt whatever notability standards they choose. Just because say Wikipedia has some rather strict standards on notability doesn't mean that other sites can't have more liberal standards.
• Strangely enough, the majority of current Ameriwiki articles are sexuality-related.: If you count them, you'd find that isn't true. I'd suggest the majority of the articles are religion/philosophy-related, with a few covering sexuality. I'd know this because I created most of them.
• Extreme wingnuttery: what makes Ameriwki extreme wingnuttery? Right-of-centre, yes, but not extreme wingnuttery. It's moderate enough right-of-centre to welcome the participate of left-of-centre editors like myself.
• It currently has over 143 articles (about 3 not copied by a grunt): I don't really appreciate being called a grunt. Why not just say by Zachary Martin (or Maratrean as I am known here).

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am no objective authority (being the Site Owner), but I would like to address the points Maratrean has made myself. I did say that article was okay, and the first point seems right. (I may add a few criticisms later, though it is not urgent) The second.... he may be on to something. While "a majority" of articles cannot be said to be about the subject, it does have more than WP or CZ or CP probably did in their infant stages. But, also thinking about this, the Colonel added this a while back, and there were probably an unproportional amount of those articles (I don't remember exactly, but that may have been the case). And the third one: it appears SuperJosh removed the extreme wingnuttery part. And Maratrean is right about that one. I won't edit the article myself, but if the Colonel or anyone would fix the inaccuracies, that would be appreciated.--George (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And, also, don't take the Colonel seriously. I'm sure he meant no harm. We're talking about the "cheerleaders are fascists" guy, right? :)--George (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we know it's Christian? I just put a question up there asking where the POV is explained. All I can see is "Americentric, conservative". It doesn't actually say "Christisn".

I guess that conservative is sort of clear - though there is CP "insane conservative" and presumably some sort of more "sane conservative" in the US (at lest I hope there is). But I think that "Americentric" needs to be defined. Is it only about the US? Is everything to be explained for the US point of view? Is the assumption "US is best"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"The majority of articles were created by an Australian"

What do you want me to do about it? Mass delete? I can't help if a contributor from another country wants to edit an Americentric wiki. His edits don't seem, for the most part, that non-POV.--George (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I just find it humorous. Тy^rannosaurs 22:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds you want to turn me into him by trying to get me to ban Australians. I can't help he has loads of spare time and wants to import a bunch of stuff. At least he's not uploading a bunch of crap.--George (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, He has accounts on what 6 wikis now? No, it is in the article because of RW:SPOV. Тy^Yarrr 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume, Snarky Point of View, not Scientific, then.--George (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 22:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WIGO

Roll up, roll up.. Place your bets now on how long it is before we get WIGO AW ;) -- 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll propose it now!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And when do you think AW will rewrite the Bible?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Obscenity!

"Damn" is obscene? Scream!! (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. ChristopherS (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
3. Repulsive; disgusting

? Scream!! (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Growing up saying damn would result in having my mouth washed out with soap for profanity. Welcome to tha South. ChristopherS (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats called child abuse--Mikalosa (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Naw, ya think? ChristopherS (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume by 'the south' you mean the parts of the USA that still practice slavery as opposed to, say, Bromley. As Dr Who (nearly) said, all planets have a south. Bad Faith (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Louisiana in this case. ChristopherS (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Faith you are my current favorite user. And careful, you'll have lots of blind kids from soap poisoning! --Mikalosa (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't spam

It was already there and it wasn't me who put it there either.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even count as an "extremely minor religion". It's made-up crap believed by one person. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, but anyway, those weren't my words (they were Colonel Sanders', do you know how to read page history?) — and your false accusation of "spam" which you have so far failed to withdraw misleadingly suggests that they are... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Take your pathetic concern trolling, shove it up your arse and fuck off and die. Quietly. You are a troll and any mention of your made-up bullshit is spamming. End of story. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Though technically "made-up bullshit" applies to most religions regardless of the number of adherents. Blue (is useful) 13:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A mere technicality. Attitudes to religion tend to just follow the rule "do I take personal exception to this?" rather than anything more consistent. ADK^{...I'll shake your Furby!} 14:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that "made-up bullshit" is not a valid line of criticism of any organized religion, including Maratrean's. Especially given its unfortunate implications when applied to Maratreanism - we're basically calling him a "prophet" a la Mohammed or Joseph Smith. The only difference is in the number (and conviction) of adherents to the religions these "prophets" founded. Unless you're willing to apply the critique universally, you shouldn't single out one wacky religious idea to call it "made-up bullshit." Blue (is useful) 19:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Amerimemes!

[1]--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone is being rather silly, aren't they now... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We believe it is JamesWilson from CP.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, look, I don't know whether you actually love Taylor Swift or not, but if you did, I can't think of anything wrong with that... she is a fine young lady... although her friend Hayley Williams is even finer :) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Bleh, look in AW's block log......--Colonel Sanders (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for trying to segue this conversation into a discussion about Hayley Williams. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh, what do I care? Fine by me. I just told you to look in the log if you wanted your question answered. Let's just hope James stays content with this and will stop the memeing.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Conservapedia Ameriwiki!

Look at the Main Page! Less and less like CP each and every day!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead?

The site is probably dead. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look, and no. There are current edits and several active users--"Shut up, Brx." 04:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

it isnt dead, but it certainly isnt really alive either. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I edit Ameriwiki? it says I'm not blocked, but all I get is View Source and can't e-mail SamCoulter or anybody else from there. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

George, nope. No email yet & still can't edit. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to go back to that RINO empire anyway? It's a bunch of liberal malarkey and Taylor Swift. That's all that's there. Your talents can be better placed elsewhere. But yeah, it's pretty much DEAD.--Elvis is King (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems RW & CP both want to cover up the truth about Bill Clinton. Let's hope Ameriwiki won't engage in such unconscionable censorship. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

George: No, still no confirmation request. Do you need an email address? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Sam added the requirement to avoid spam. --Tlaloc (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An open letter to George

George- I now know you check and read this page- I would like to say a few things to you and would like a prompt reply either here or on Ameriwiki. Your wiki has been taken over by faux-conservatives, including the atrocious Sam Coulter and the imbecile Chicken Boy. It is full of anti-conservative and anti-American sentiment; my truthful edits were reverted by their hands since they were "hatchet" pieces- whatever that means. You lost your vision for Ameriwiki- Sam and Sanders took it from you, blinding you with a blindfold of idiocy and fraud. You have been usurped. Work with me, and I will give you a wiki that is completely conservative. Free of Coulter's liberal bias, free of Chicken Boy's Taylor Swift malarkey (how could you let him post that on the main page???), free of any of the idiocy that is currently there. I know you're a decent man and principled conservative, like I am, and we can work together to send Coulter and Chicken Boy to irrelevance. Sincerely, --Elvis is King (talk), a principled conservative

I would like to endorse message above. Those commies are everywhere. And they always make it about Taylor fucking Swift. Man, she's too old. Typical commies pushing their babushkas in our fresh pink conservative faces. I salute you, man who calls me King. Elvis (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/ww?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy squealing again? It's entertaining. Lemme guess: he tried permabanning me again or something too...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with some of the sentiments expressed here. The deletion of several Vonona related articles in favor of popular culture drivel is evidence of post Cold War triumphalism denial and an ongoing commie cover up. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, who made the Rob quote generator? Godspeed (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift isn't American? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A reply to the above: Coulter's a parodist, Chicken's an imbecile, and I am a principled coservative. George, take your wiki back! Taylor Swift is liberal claptrap. Rob, thanks for the support and I support your Cold War material fully. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A response to Sam Coulter: it's just like a liberal to want to permaban a principled conservative. And Chicken, you can make fun of my typo, but I'll have you know I've never loved Taylor Swift in my life. Censor me, and censor Rob. It's all you clods ever do round those parts. You want content? Adopt some real conservative principles, and not this brand of faux-conservatism Coulter has dripping. It's utter malarkey, and I ask George to stop it. If he cannot, since he was usurped unknowingly, I will provide for him a wiki free of Coulter and Chicken's commie mumbo-gumbo. Coulter obviously also sympathizes with Middle-Eastern regimes since he censored my content on Iran. Saddam was a good guy, eh Sammy? Get a life and stop pushing atheism on Real American Patriots and Principled Conservatives like me and George.--Elvis is King (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. The secret communist cabal that currently controls the so-called conservative movement is so outrageous in their attempts to undermine true conservative ideals that conservatives can't conservatively conserve their conserves anymore and are forced to use a refrigerator. Omar (gibber) 15:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To the liberals who want to banish principled conservative intellectualism: name one thing I vandalized. I do not recall ever being a vandal. As for having an abusive personality, I resent that remark. You guys are the ones calling me an idiot. Your little "vote" is proof that only George values true conservatism and that we should create a new site free of faux-conservative RINO nonsense. --Elvis is King (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You wanted an example, so here you go, dear. [2] And maybe I was a little harsh about the abusive personality. Sometimes you just come across as a petulant child who is holding his breath and stomping his feet until he gets his way. Have a nice day. SharonW (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and James? No one is preventing you from creating your very own, legitimate, conservative wiki. You would appear much more sincere and mature if you went in that direction rather than continue with what you're doing regarding AW. Best of luck. SharonW (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll reopen Realwiki. --Elvis is King (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Go, George, Go!

Demote that imbecile for his Taylor Swift loving! Demote him for his trolling and idiocy! Don't Let Sammy stop you! Go, George, go! Go Ronald too! --Elvis is King (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To Ronald

You are a good man, fighting the powers of German nationalism that be in Ameriwiki. I salute your bravery for using the last of the Fitzgerald dynasty's power in order to delete the Taylor Swift entry. It was an unselfish act of bravery. I would be honored for you to join Realwiki at [3]. We could take down the effort of Taylor Swift loving and German nationalism by creating a real conservative oasis. I salute you, my friend. --Elvis is King (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you talking to? Why don't you go play on your own wikis? Cow...Hammer^time! 17:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

George's new wiki

He made me sysop! Eat that, Sammy! --Elvis is King (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead.

This place is as good as dead. Its last 50 edits stretch back to almost a week ago. I say we either gut the article and put everything past-tense or just delete it. The only reason we have an article on it in the first place is because a few editors are from here or CP, so absolutely no one outside of those two places would even be aware of it. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

meh.--il'Dictator Mikal 17:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What Cowhammer said. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am glad I killed the site before it really had a chance. --Elvis is King (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This was a tongue-in-cheek comment based on accusations that I destroyed the site, rather than the fake owners turning the site into a liberal Wikipedia clone. Since I was not allowed to delete the comment that could be taken out of context, I am adding this comment. --Elvis is King (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)