Obama Care: Oct 10, 2013

Thursday, October 10, 2013

(Difference between revisions)I would re-read the commandments, and not contest Mr. Schlafly descisions. I won't block you now, but I warn you, future insubordination regarding the owner's descisions will not be tolerated. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)I would re-read the commandments, and not contest Mr. Schlafly descisions. I won't block you now, but I warn you, future insubordination regarding the owner's descisions will not be tolerated. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)== This will continue until markman is blocked indefinitely ==== This will continue until markman is blocked indefinitely ==== This will continue until markman is blocked indefinitely ==

Welcome!

Hello, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT), and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, --Jpatt 10:00, 19 October 2011 (EDT)!

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Congratulations, your account has been promoted such that you can now block other accounts!--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Great block and reverts this morning.--Andy Schlafly 09:33, 8 November 2011 (EST)

I don't think that's a good example of a block, sorry, and changed it to 3 days. They were using the Talk pages. They were providing sources. I think this shows a need for warning, not permanent blocking. They shouldn't have re-added material removed by Aschlafly but I don't think that's cause for a permablock. Some of their edits show they believe in Christianity. --Jzyehoshua 20:04, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I'd originally changed it to 10 minutes, because I'd just glanced at the Diff and not seen any blatant vandalism. But when I checked the page history, I realized he'd re-added material reverted by the site's founder, pretty serious, so that's why I changed it to 3 days. I've explained it to him at his talk page. I still think it was an honest mistake made by a newbie, not intentional vandalism. Intentional vandals wouldn't go to that much trouble with serious writing and attempted sources. I think he probably spent time writing it, saw it reverted, and thought he could re-add it and discuss it, not realizing who had removed it. I'd like to see him get another chance. --Jzyehoshua 20:33, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

I was wondering what AlanA was blocked for. According to Conservapedia's Guidelines, "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."

So if AlanA was blocked for an ideological comment, questioning whether Gallup results are critical of religion, then isn't that contrary to guidelines? And if we are allowed to block based on ideological reasons, shouldn't the guidelines be updated so people at least know what to expect? --Jzyehoshua 12:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I just don't know if it sends that good a message to respond to such a comment by banning and preventing conversation. I disagree with his comment, but I think the right approach is to discuss it so long as he remains courteous and honest in the discusssion. --Jzyehoshua 12:14, 24 July 2012 (EDT) The atheistic Britons comment was vandalism I suppose though, so that might be worthy of a block. I hadn't noticed that one as much before. --Jzyehoshua 12:18, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, what is with some of these blocks? You just blocked some people on the main page who said some stuff about video games in disagreement with you, even when they were remaining courteous. What was with the block of GuitarSniper in particular? You said he was "trolling" for expressing disagreement about video games causing violence? Are we just blocking everybody who dares disagree with every single one of our most esoteric opinions now?[1] Just blocking everybody who dares make a single comment we disagree with? What's the point of Debate pages if people can't disagree reasonably? Why don't you just delete those and put up a "Dictatorship of Markman" flag on the site if you're going to make blocks like that? Man... This isn't compatible with the Guidelines at all. The site claims that "Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page."[2] Start treating these people fairly so I don't have to reverse all these silly blocks that are contary to Conservapedia's guidelines. It wastes my time and yours. --Joshua Zambrano 23:40, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I am not saying it is but, like those of a number of long-serving editors here, this user name can be explained with about 5 seconds of thought. Croy is a surname. I also know at least one town in Britain. Ifor is a Welsh name - quite common, a variation of Ivor. Serge is a particularly common name. It's the anglisisation of Sergei, as in Prokofiev, Rachmaninov etc. I went to school with a Serge. Ban him if you like for username reasons, but I thought your comments were a little gratuitous. Just saying.... AlanE 20:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

While I do not disagree with your recent blocks, I do feel that the the comments you put for the block reason are a little bit over the top, and do not reflect on Conservapedia's professional policies. It is perfectly fair to block a troll, but you don't need to reciprocate by making some more accusations, that have little to do with the user's actions. Thanks for reading,

brenden 21:10, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Bear in mind I was the one who started the baby-eating thing. I think he found it far more welcoming than the "FNQ Hello" (Dvergne will know what I mean.) There is a lack of basic courtesy on this site that one feels unless they are completely within the ideological circle - which you are of course.

What I said had to be said. It needs to be said every now and then because people come here, they do all the right things to get Andy's favour and are given power. They use it. Some of them abuse it. They know they have the boss's blessing. They don't know my history - usually because they haven't bothered to find out. To them I am just another troll, when really I am just letting off a bit of steam as a grumpy old man who likes taking the mickey occasionally . And I have always been a keen and somewhat amused observer of social interaction. And yes, it is trolling to an extent. So are Cons' constant hardly relevant incursions into talk pages. (And just to stir the possum (an Australianism) .... without the homosexual couple who lived in the next apartment from when I was 11 to 18 years of age I may not have been able to create the articles in Category:Sacred music for they instilled in me a love of church music that has lasted over 50 years. Musical vermin, they were.) Cheers - and sorry I misunderstood. AlanE 03:57, 23 February 2013 (EST)

What is the point of blocking a new user and telling them to recreate their account with a more appropriate username if you block them with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled ??? It seems a bit counter intuitive and unproductive to me. Dvergne 03:47, 24 February 2013 (EST)

Whoops, didn't notice I did that. Thanks, I'll avoid this mistake next time. - Markman 03:48, 24 February 2013 (EST) I suggest you be less vigorous with your blocking otherwise I may need to have a word with Andy, it seems you are starting to drive away genuine users as well as the parodists, spammers and trolls. Dvergne 09:12, 25 February 2013 (EST) Just to be sure here, could you put a diff of the offending edits that DonnyC made? brenden 23:23, 26 February 2013 (EST) I have gone through his contributions for the past week and there is nothing that is deserving of a block. --DamianJohn 01:41, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Blocking the User:GiseleRom because of Silly and/or foul username. Account may be recreated as a first name and last initial sounds quite ironic when the block isn't performed by User:MarkM but by User:Markman :-) --AugustO 14:40, 28 February 2013 (EST)

I haven't seen your input to this article on Talk:E=mc² yet - I'm interested in your thoughts! --AugustO 14:49, 28 February 2013 (EST)

If you don't know what you are doing, just don't do it! --AugustO 15:09, 28 February 2013 (EST) See my recent edit summary. - Markman 15:10, 28 February 2013 (EST) See Talk:E=mc² and my recent edit summary. --AugustO 15:11, 28 February 2013 (EST)

Hmmn - I suppose CP's policy on usernames may justify blocking him/her, but still, there remains the possibility the s/he was merely a fan of DW, and was unaware of our username policy (Usernames shall be a variation of your real name). brenden 14:27, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Great blocks, but the better block reason is "user name policy: please consider recreating ...." Thanks!--Andy Schlafly 08:57, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Given your personal feelings you should not be blocking DonnyC. In any case he was engaging playfully with a sysop who has not taken offence, and who is big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. Our role is to block obvious trolls and vandals, not editors we happen not to like. Leave that sort of blocking to the sysops, which you are not. Please try to get along with others, rather than picking fights all the time. Thanks. --DamianJohn 15:14, 3 March 2013 (EST)

I have seen your warning regarding my excessive talk posts. Note that 13 of the 20 that you mention represent four discussions. I was unaware that a three post dialog, say, resulted in a 30-post article quota, or that correcting a misspelling in a talk post added 10 more to deficit.

Another two of my talk posts were a suggestion to improve an article (which was met with a request from the original editor to make the change), plus a "done" response from me. If that exchange puts me in the hole for 20 more article updates, I can see this is a very potent rule.

I do admit that the "letter of the law" can be interpreted this way. I will be more careful in the future. As long as I'm here, I wonder if you saw my question to you regarding why you prefer "sheep" to "lamb" in Exodus? MelH 17:03, 3 March 2013 (EST)

Can I ask why you blocked me? All I did was follow the procedures to delete obvious spam. JohnQu 09:47, 5 March 2013 (EST)

How nice of you to go around ask for citations for all my contributions. A lot of the information in those articles was written through knowledge I have gained over the years so probably can't point to a specific location for the referencing. It would be much appreciated if you would help me find these references. Dvergne 03:24, 6 March 2013 (EST)

You fool! You're even doing it to items that are cited. Look at USS Sturgeon. But keep going - it's showing people just how useful I was to the "information" part of the "Encyclopedia. There are hundreds yet. (How many article have you created and on what variety of subjects?) AlanE 14:18, 6 March 2013 (EST)

So sorry but I find Markman "uncited" edits correct. You are encouraged to add sources for verifiability or ask for help.--Joaquín Martínez 19:17, 6 March 2013 (EST) Joachin, I hadn't realised how much you disliked me. I had gone out of my way to treat you with respect and to give you some grounding in the music I love. I had no idea you disrespected my knowledge. Thanks for supporting a person who is doing this for no other reason than malice towards me. AlanE 20:53, 6 March 2013 (EST) While Citation Needed tags are good, it really makes no sense that you are simply systematically going through AlanE's edits, and sticking spamming his perfectly fine pages with them. A quick Google search would verify the credence of his edits, and I see no motive behind this beside petty disagreements with AlanE. brenden 21:08, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Ya might wanna check out the edits by MattyD as BryanF was a sock of that particularly annoying user.

There are a lot of animal articles without citations, u might wanna look at them. 10:31, 8 March 2013 (EST)

And I expect those whining about citations had better be prepared to find and add them. "That's not my job" is an excuse I will never accept. Karajou 11:38, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Try this [3] template instead for short or stub articles. Karajou 17:41, 8 March 2013 (EST)

This is good, but the uncited template is still needed for articles lacking in citations. And in regards to your previous remarks, don't worry about it. As I've already said, tomorrow I'm going to start going through articles lacking in citations and work on fixing them. - Markman 17:43, 8 March 2013 (EST)

Leave mine to me and I will use the books I use to check my facts. I will do them category by category. But don't put that tag on any more of my edits. Seeing as I'm being hung out to dry here, give me at least that. Now excuse me for an hour or three - I'm laying bricks today, at least they are going to stay where I put them.AlanE 19:23, 8 March 2013 (EST)

I've drastically reduced his block period, as his edits to mainspace articles have been helpful, and his edits to talkpages have been rather productive, and insightful. brenden 23:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

And then you block him for 2 hours, on the grounds of "accusing you of blocking him out of vengeance". Please explain what this really means. Also, Rafael, 2 day block?? For mocking users (I presume User:C, as he is the primary editor at MPR)? User:C has demonstrated that he prefers to engage in such banter, and the rather gentle mocking from rafael (in comparison to user:C's downright belligerent words) was certainly tolerable by any standards. brenden 13:29, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I have three issues with what you have said: 1. Before today, I have never heard of the internet joke "Ryan Cash." My account was made in June 2010 and I'm not even sure if that joke was around then, considering that you are the first person to ever bring that to my attention. If the name sounds similar, it is purely coincidence, let me explain. Ryan is my first name and cs is the initials of my double-barreled surname. H was added in when I made my very first internet account and ryancs was taken, with ryancsh being the closest option. Since then, it's just been habit to stick to it.

2. You accuse me of Parody yet there is no evidence on conservapedia to prove that I am guilty of being a parody. I have only spoke with my own opinion and the guild-lines clearly state that the parody must me on conservapedia. In fact, I direct you to the difference between conservapedia and Wikipedia page in which it clearly states that conservapedia does not ban users due to outside blogs or activities. Even though the link to an internet joke is incorrect, you are still going against the values of conservapedia by trying to discredit me with outside information. Also, I might add that if I was a parodist would I not have begun being a parody when I joined and not 2 years later?

3. You blocked me for the 90/10 rule. Firstly I would point out that the rule states "90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles" on the conservative commandments. My contribution as a whole as been 75%talk and 25% edits, (5 to 20) but that includes the 4 debate talks I did over a year ago. This year it has been 5-15 and in June it was 5-2 (or 5-4 if you count my user page as talk). Surely this would show that I was starting to reform my behavior when you blocked me. I trust that an administrator, who is obviously dedicated as he is fervent to expel any troublemakers, would not like to give the impression "it doesn't matter if you reform we will still ban you" as this goes against the whole idea of repentance and forgiveness. In fact, your block has meant that I am not able to make the planned edits to the Liberal Denial page as I was blocked until 11PM and then had to spend my time writing this to prove my innocence.

So please, in the future, could you just ask before you block or give a verbal warning so that the accused (me in this case) has time to explain. Justice, not vengeance, is truly conservative. Ryancsh 5 June 2013 20:34 GMT

There is no evidence of parody or intentional misinformation from user Ryancsh. Karajou 02:02, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

I like how you didn't even bother to read that userpage. *sarcastic slow clap* brenden 15:50, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

You do have to admit, some of it is quite witty :) -- Penny

Can you please restore/undelete it so I can save it to a CD/USB ? God Be upon you, PennyS

Advisory Warning

Hello, Markman,

We're glad you are here to learn and possibly edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you do.

Your chosen user name and/or initial edits don't inspire a great deal of confidence, however.
If you are here to argue, show us why we are wrong, introduce a liberal POV into articles, engage in time wasting talk, talk, talk, you have indeed come to the wrong place. We value conciseness, civility and productivity here.
Please consider opening your mind...the truth will set you free!

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page.

Thanks for reading, Markman!

I would re-read the commandments, and not contest Mr. Schlafly descisions. I won't block you now, but I warn you, future insubordination regarding the owner's descisions will not be tolerated. brenden 13:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

User talk:Markman