Anyone who abuses this website; anyone who abuses the authority and ownership of this website by ASchlafly; anyone who comes in this website out of the blue and demands changes to the site like they own it; anyone who harasses others within this website; will be thrown out by me without warning. Karajou 21:09, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }In response to your little rant elsewhere, no, Sammy, you were not thrown out for making a mere "article" if that's what you can call it. You were thrown out for incivility, for attitude problems, for constant sock creation (we have records!), for trolling...for pretty much acting like you can bad-mouth this site from elsewhere while expecting - if not demanding - to edit in it. Have a nice day. Karajou 12:24, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
In addition to being proved a thief, you've proven yourself to be a lying little leftist thug. You really think you can come into this website and force your own way of thinking on us? In the end, Sammy, all you've ever done was to prove we were right about you and your kind all along. Do have a splendid day. Karajou 15:46, 19 October 2012 (EDT)I was once DorMouse. I promise that I am here to edit in good faith, if you look at my previous contribs, I have done nothing to hurt this website. As I said at Ameriwiki and ASk, I will continue contributing here, in good faith, regardless of blocks.
NB I do not know who JonM is/was, contrary to what the lovely block reason says. I use a dynamic IP owned by Telus, if that helps you.
19:05, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Ps, my real name is Brenden. I am a closeted gay. PPS: Simply because I am gay, does not mean I want to harm CP. I will continue editing here in good faith, regardless of blocks. If you want to get an idea of what I will add here, you can visit me at ASk or Ameriwiki.Final note: I apologize for using multiple accounts and a fake name in my first account. I vigorously defend that I do not know who JonM was, or his/her various socks. I am not here to troll you, or your companions; I simply hope to make Conservapedia better.19:08, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Hello Karajou, I got your request to provide references to my contributions. I am a beginner, so I am learning. My first contribution "Psittacosis" is definitely lacking references, so I will provide them soon. "Statins" have references in the poor, non-standard form of the list at the end of the article; but otherwise they are sufficient, aren't they? On my contributions to "Illegal Immigration": I think you have deleted them all, am I wrong? I still think in such public issues as immigration there is room for common observations, not necessarily rigorously referenced. I would appreciate your instructing me in my learning process. Muteswan
American young earth creationism increased in the last two years - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!.[1]
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.[2][3] Conservative 07:50, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
Could we try adding the string "EnidBlyton" to mediawiki:TitleBlacklist, assuming we have the extension?brenden 20:48, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for deleting the vandalized pages. AugustO 13:45, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
You're welcome. Karajou 13:49, 18 June 2012 (EDT)My edits were based on sourced information which in turn were based on federal tax records. You reverted my edits without explanation. DanielGerrard 19:34, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
Then get the federal tax records instead of relying on a liberal rag that supports a woman's "right" to kill an unborn child. Karajou 20:27, 20 June 2012 (EDT) I'll add that the Washington Post is not a credible source when it comes to social issues. If PP's whole business model only generates 3% of their profits from abortion, it's a lie. Multiple credible sources have documented that Planned Parenthood, first and foremost, is the largest killer of unborn children. That they will abort for any reason. That their breast studies are a rouse, they don't even own one mammography machine. --Jpatt 20:34, 20 June 2012 (EDT)Dear Karajou,
I noticed that you recently deleted Canicattì massacre as a copyright violation, but it appears that you quoted part of the text of the article in the deletion log. I just wanted to remind you to check the log entry that will be produced and redact it appropriately before you delete a page. Thanks! GregG 20:57, 24 June 2012 (EDT)
Just in case I am not around, enjoy your 4rth of July this year. Conservative 07:14, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
For noticing those pagesbrenden 01:06, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I noticed you reverted that edit about the name of the UK. Actually the vandal was right about that one, the full official designation of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Came about after the act of settlement. Wales is a principality and is not and never have been a country, despite what they claim, whereas Scotland is (or was) a kingdom. Just thought I'd mention it. Admitedly the rest of the stuff was rubbish vandalism. Davidspencer 15:46, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Make the necessary corrections as you see fit. Karajou 15:47, 3 July 2012 (EDT)G'day. I need a quiet word about USS Sturgeon. Can you email me, please, when you have time. (alan.carvel@gmail.com.) Thanks. AlanE 00:13, 5 July 2012 (EDT)
Sent. Karajou 01:33, 5 July 2012 (EDT) Thanks AlanE 16:36, 5 July 2012 (EDT)Could you explain a few things to me please? According to which definition of "trolling" whatever I've done on this encyclopedia was trolling? Was expressing an opinion in Talk:Adolf Hitler, with quotes and sources to prove my point, trolling? Why my edits in Law and Justice and Unia Polityki Realnej articles were reverted? Is developing articles trolling? I practically created the whole Law and Justice article which was only two sentences before and, thanks to you, it is now. How was it "trolling"? W.J.M. 18:06, 8 July 2012 (EDT)
The explanation was included in the block reason, which you read, and I don't have to explain further. Karajou 00:10, 9 July 2012 (EDT) You wrote that I was "trolling in talk pages". This is not an explanation why my edits in Law and Justice and Unia Polityki Realnej were reverted. I wouldn't bother to ask again but I just don't know if there is any sense for me to edit anything here if it can be randomly labelled as "trolling" without any reason. W.J.M. 09:55, 9 July 2012 (EDT)The page has no edit function, presumably because my account is recent? Maybe you might like to reconsider your harsh words. Pdorme 17:24, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
The page was unlocked, and not due to you being recent. If anyone needs to reconsider harsh words, it is you. You DO NOT come into THIS or ANY other website online and act as though you have rights here. Karajou 17:27, 10 July 2012 (EDT)The claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the Theory of Evolution has been discussed at length on this talk page. With all due respect, the arguments made by yourself and Mr. Schlafly are based on a misunderstanding of the law. The sources cited by User:Conservative in the article are guilty of the same faulty line of reasoning. Since the talk page discussion ended after I responded to Mr. Schlafly, I thought that might have cleared things up. Apparently not, since you still insist on keeping the claim in the article.
In reality, everything does not always become more disordered. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no such thing, and this cannot be used as an argument against evolution. Individual objects/materials/subsystems can have decreases in entropy (increases in "order"), while overall net entropy (including surroundings) increases, satisfying the Second Law. Please let me know if this is unclear. --Randall7 21:27, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
The Second Law is quite clear, and I have made myself very clear on this, in that everything becomes disordered over time. You cannot hide that fact, nor can you walk away from it, nor can you ignore it, nor can you change it. It is on that point that evolution cannot work, and that article will show it. Karajou 21:50, 11 July 2012 (EDT) And I thought I made it clear that you have some severe misconceptions about what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says. It's a shame your mind is already made up about this matter, otherwise you just might learn something. Best regards, --Randall7 19:10, 13 July 2012 (EDT) Sorry to disagree with you Randall, but it is you with the closed mind; the evidence is all around you, but you just can't see the forest for the trees. Regards, Karajou 14:23, 16 July 2012 (EDT)Dear Karajou,
It seems that you protected the page before deleting it. Currently, the settings allow a new page to be created with this same title. Was this your intent? GregG 08:58, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Yes. Karajou 14:23, 16 July 2012 (EDT) Why delete Gallery of obese Christians and keep Gallery of obese atheists? Is it CP's policy to only brand obese people using negative labels? SharonW 14:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT) You don't have room to talk, SharonW. I'm very, very much aware of the "negative labels" you inflicted on a certain individual from within another website, as well as colluding with others to steal that website from him. Karajou 15:40, 16 July 2012 (EDT) I left Conservapedia because of the obesity equals all evil articles that are prolific here. What happened at the other site was the direct result of behavior over at the other site. The founder treated me rudely in private emails even though I had not done anything to earn his animosity. Why then would I support him afterward? SharonW 16:17, 16 July 2012 (EDT) The founder of that site OWNED IT. Period. The demand is for you to respect the site's owner and the site's rules. You don't walk into that website or any other site and demand changes to suit you. And from the looks of it, you're still here, and still whining. If you don't like this website; if you don't like any website you are in for that matter, then leave. Karajou 16:24, 16 July 2012 (EDT) No, there was the founder, and then there was the owner. The founder was not the owner; the founder did NOT pay the bills. User:JamesWilson admitted as much to me. Were you not aware of that? SharonW 16:33, 16 July 2012 (EDT) SharonW, I've been talking with George for nearly a year. The rules, the manual of style, the image tags posted on Ameriwiki, I wrote them and sent them directly to him. I also talked with the site's web server over a month ago. So, you know nothing. You've shown your true colors here. I'm ordering you to leave this website. Karajou 16:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT) Don't bring me into this. This is your battle. You usurped the owner of HIS OWN SITE. He would've stayed at the former location if he knew that he would have nothing to do about the hostile takeover of a certain gentleman. --James Wilson 16:40, 16 July 2012 (EDT)I would like to ask, then, why Gallery of obese atheists not only has not been deleted, but appears to be permanently protected from deletion. I started a deletion discussion on the article, but User:Conservative moved the page, indefinitely protected it, and removed the deletion notice without addressing my concerns. GregG 15:45, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
I am also aware of this page [4]. GregG, you've been here since December, and have less than 1,000 edits. This website is an online encyclopedia, and we have topics within it which makes the liberal left howl. They don't like it when we prove evolution wrong, when we prove atheism wrong, when we show how much damage they have done to this country. So one of their tactics is to come into this site, make a few edits like they're the "good" guys, and then fly into a rage as to how bad user Conservative has been to them. As far as I'm concerned, they can cry me a river...somewhere else. Karajou 16:01, 16 July 2012 (EDT) I can assure you that I am not a part of the liberal left. In fact, I am a registered Republican. I admit that I disagree with some of the positions taken by some contributors on this wiki. I respect their views. What I do have concern about is when editors (and I'm speaking generally here, and not in reference to any one contributor) make contributions that drive away productive contributors and undermine the credibility of Conservapedia as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" and the beliefs that Conservapedia espouses. I can only imagine that if a Buddhist, or a believer in Hinduism, or an atheist comes to Conservapedia in a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia and have their beliefs maligned at every turn by some contributors, their hearts will be hardened against God, as they may understandably believe every Christian to be like the editors on Conservapedia. It is because I support most of Conservapedia's positions and the entirety of Conservapedia's mission of building a trustworthy encyclopedia from a Christian conservative perspective that I spend time writing out my concerns in the hopes that they will be listened to. GregG 16:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT) Then the thing to do is 1) respectfully disagree; and 2) drop the subject and move on with something else. The howling left doesn't like to do that, and they're still howling. Karajou 16:28, 16 July 2012 (EDT) Thank you for the advice. One quick question: what would you suggest doing if a contributor (again, speaking generally, and not in reference to any particular user) comments on my faith; beliefs on the age of the earth, creation, or evolution; or physical stature and I don't want to debate or discuss those topics? I'm serious; I do want to know what to do for future reference. In hindsight, perhaps my foray into a QE! blog post at Talk:Main Page today was ill-advised, and I should not have commented. GregG 17:11, 16 July 2012 (EDT) Hi, just wanted to register my respectful disagreement with the 'gallery of obese atheists' page. I think deleting the 'gallery of obese christians' was a good start, but it would be nice if we got rid of both of them. thanks,Cmurphynz 01:17, 19 July 2012 (EDT) The point that I think you are missing CMurphy, is that the link between obesity and atheism is established and accepted to the standards required here at Conservapedia. Any link between some Christians and some obesity is merely incidental and there is no established causal link. Therefore the atheist page needs to stay whilst the Christian page has no place. Don't like it? You need to discuss the matter with User:Conservative, who knows all the relevant facts and the relevant research. --DamianJohn 02:34, 19 July 2012 (EDT) @DamionJohn: You are far too obvious.--VPropp 15:05, 20 July 2012 (EDT)No, Sammyboy, you bring it on. You bring your little records, your little face, and make your case in front of me while we both face a U.S. Federal judge. Let's see if you got the guts to do so. Karajou 18:12, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
What's with all of the instant blocks on the site? I hope you're sure these people are causing trouble because I'd hate to think that valid conservatives could be getting banned for no reason. How do you know Scramon5 for example deserves a block? Furthermore, why are so many blocks being made for infinite time or years? --Jzyehoshua 03:34, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm looking, and a lot of these people have no contributions, no talk pages, no user pages whatsoever. How are you able to decide right away they need to be blocked? I'm confused. Maybe I'm just not seeing something. IP addresses maybe? --Jzyehoshua 03:36, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
The many user names who you see getting blocked are actually just a few individuals who like to leave spam, like to harass, like to vandalize, and so on. Yes, I check them out first. See the message immediately below the warning sign at the top of this page. I won't play around with people who abuse this website. Karajou 04:05, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Just wanting to make sure you're getting the right people. I know you mis-assumed my Jzy account was involved with three accounts I've never heard of before. So I'm more than a little skeptical about your methods, because you sure got me wrong, that's for sure. I just wanted to make sure you're not banning wrong people and intentionally destroying the site's community, that's all. --Jzyehoshua 04:34, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Just how exactly do you know these people are vandals, anyway, if you don't mind me asking? They have no posting history. That leaves IP address I guess. But if that were the case, then how in the world did you think I was related to 3 accounts I never heard of before? You must be pretty loose with your IP tracking if so... I'd just like to know that you're not removing valid contributors. I've never seen a wiki just let admins block people right away, non-stop, who've never contributed before like this. It really looks bad, just let me say that, blocking people all the time who've left no evidence yet they are vandals. --Jzyehoshua 04:40, 22 July 2012 (EDT) I mean, I saw you completely misunderstand my Jzy account and call it related to 3 accounts I never heard of. And now I see you banning accounts which have zero posting history. Maybe you do know what you're doing with this. But right now it's pretty hard to understand how that can be the case, and I at least would like to have a better understanding of what's going on here, because frankly it looks like you're just guessing and maybe even deliberately sabotaging the site by kicking out new users who want to contribute. --Jzyehoshua 04:50, 22 July 2012 (EDT) And how did I misunderstand your Jzy account? Explain that one to me, by first explaining the significance of your IP address 141.0.8.155. Karajou 05:02, 22 July 2012 (EDT) You've got my IP address completely wrong. Maybe you need to update your software. My IP shows up here as 98.220.198.49. I can post again here or anywhere else that shows IP address if you don't believe me. This computer does have a router with several computers on it, but I don't know why that would make much difference. You think that's my IP though? Isn't that a Kansas IP address? You are WAYYY off, I'm in Illinois. --Jzyehoshua 05:16, 22 July 2012 (EDT) North Illinois to boot. I'm not too far from Chicago. That can't even be within 200 miles of me. This is just a regular desktop. I do have my settings configured to prevent cookies using a program called Vanilla Cookie Manager, a Chrome extension. I'm not even using Opera right now as my browser. I've got NO idea how you got that IP address. That is not even close... --Jzyehoshua 05:19, 22 July 2012 (EDT) That IP address came directly from your account as Jzy; you are the one who used it. Opera Software ASA, a confirmed proxy server, and that IP was also attached to four other names who vandalized the site. Karajou 05:29, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Well, I can login again to the Jzy account right now, though I don't know why that would make any difference. As far as I know I'm the only person using that account and that IP address shouldn't be anywhere near my location. I have no idea how you got that IP address for the Jzy account. Should be the same IP address for both accounts. I suppose I did buy a new computer recently on eBay, but that was from a guy in Colorado, which should still be nowhere near Kansas. I might have logged in via it at one point, but it's still through the same internet connection here in Illinois. Something's sure not adding up here. --Jzyehoshua 05:36, 22 July 2012 (EDT) I'm logged into the Jzy account now also, that one through Firefox, this one through Google Chrome. Same IP result? Or is it giving different results for both accounts? --Jzyehoshua 05:39, 22 July 2012 (EDT) IPs are picked up and recorded by most websites online, including all Mediawiki-based sites. Type something in using the Jzy account. Karajou 05:45, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Well, since the Jzy account is banned, where could I type it in at? I'm using the same computer to log into both accounts right now. I just can't write anything with the Jzy one. --Jzyehoshua 06:03, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Well, I'm going to assume that something in the Opera browser you said you had routed your internet connection through their proxy, and did so without you knowing it. The Jzy account is unblocked, I'm off to do whatever it is I do, so goodnight. Karajou 06:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Still blocked it looks like, or I'd post here with it so you can figure out the IP address. I still can't figure out how you got different IP addresses for the same location like that though. I wouldn't think different computers at the same address and internet connection should give completely different IPs, because that's the only thing I can think of. --Jzyehoshua 06:17, 22 July 2012 (EDT) Still no edit abilities for the Jzy one. It doesn't really matter though. However, I was editing back then through another computer, but again, it was through the same router at the same location. The other computer's having some unmountable boot volume issue now, so I haven't been using it the last few weeks. I still don't know why using it would alter IP address though, it shouldn't, since they're on the same internet connection. I thought IP was related to internet connection primarily, not the computer itself. The only way that would change anything is if going through the router is messing up the IP address for secondary computers. That'd be one big difference though, from a 98 IP address to a 141, for the same location. --Jzyehoshua 16:23, 22 July 2012 (EDT)Same IP address? I'm using the same computer for both accounts.
Sorry if I came off as rude before by the way. I just get really concerned at the prospect other people on Conservapedia are being banned without reason. I'm happy to do whatever I can to make sure your IP system is working right.
I'm not able to use the computer I was originally using for this account now because again, it's got an unmountable boot volume issue. So before I was logging into this one through a different one. Thing is, they were both at the same location through the same internet connection. I suppose that one would've gone through a router though. --Jzy 16:29, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
The only thing I can think of is that maybe people going through a router rather than using their main computer show up as a 141 IP address for some reason, because there's otherwise no explanation I can think of for how my IP showed up the same as anyone else. As you should be able to see now, this is the same IP address for both accounts here, a 98 IP address. Which means maybe the other computer that's not working now showed up as a 141 address. But that was being used one room away from this one, so why it would show a 40 something difference in range I can't figure out. --Jzy 16:33, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
So what happened with the IPs? Does it show the 141 IP again at all? I'm curious what it's showing for the Jzy account. --Jzyehoshua 05:05, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
I checked, and you're accessing the site through the 98 IP address. It makes it more likely that the Opera software you once had did some unauthorized re-routing. You're good :) Karajou 13:00, 23 July 2012 (EDT)Okay, just checking. :) I rarely even use Opera as a browser. Maybe I have some bug on the computer or something. I was really surprised I got any IP listed other than the 98 though. I can ban that other account of mine now if you want, I just wanted to show you it's a 98 IP. :) --Jzyehoshua 22:58, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
I suspect you meant apple/opera webkit, a commonly used api for http browsers. Chrome, firefox, opera and ie uses it.brenden 01:17, 22 August 2012 (EDT)Any chance the people you're banning are in IP ranges, and you're actually seeing the IPs for their service hosts? Because I'm a bit confused why a spammer would create a bunch of accounts all at once like that... At some point, all these deletions look worse than if vandalism were committed. Any chance of waiting until vandalism is committed to act? If the IP address is in fact blocked for a spammer, then how can they be creating new accounts? Or do the new accounts just get blocked automatically? I just worry when I see accounts getting blocked who haven't had any contributions yet, that new users could be getting banned... --Joshua Zambrano 01:35, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
Obviously a wiki can't prosper if it's mistakenly banning all its new users. I'd just like to have as much peace of mind as possible that the right ones are getting banned. --Joshua Zambrano 01:45, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
I'll worry about the trolls; the good guys will still get in. Karajou 03:08, 28 July 2012 (EDT)You wrote as the block reason for a 3-month block: "90/10 rule: excess of talk rather than edits to substantive entries: just here to gab, spout off how "superior" liberalism is to everything under the sun, and so on like a typical journalist". I counted his extant contributions, and he has 51 contributions to articles and 50 edits to talk and user talk pages (these numbers may be a bit off, since I counted manually and did not use an automated script). Of course, there might be edits that were deleted from the database that I don't know about (but that you would have considered). I trust your ultimate judgment, of course, but I think that a 3-month block for 51 article contributions and 50 talk page edits seems excessive, especially for behavior that does not appear to quantitatively violate 90/10. Thanks for your consideration, GregG 21:01, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Perhaps you are right. I'm going to remove the block, and count it as excessive. Karajou 21:06, 7 August 2012 (EDT) Thanks for the quick response! GregG 21:10, 7 August 2012 (EDT)There's lots of vandalism happening at the moment and I can't revert some of it - can you help? EJamesW 14:29, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Did rigger45 really hack the air force or were you joking in your block summary? Georgrdarwinclark 21:43, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Why do you need to know? Karajou 22:01, 21 August 2012 (EDT)Hi Karajou, would you please email me? nate46373 at gmail. Thanks. Nate 22:40, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
Karajou, Nate is seeing the writing on the wall that the religion of evolutionism is going to be further crushed and it is upsetting to him. Don't pay attention to his evolutionist pleading via email. Tell Nate that you think evolutionism needs to further be crushed and the faster it happens the better. Nate needs to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded debate that will distributed to 20,000 people. Tell him to contact Shockofgod or VivaRamones at http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 to set up the debate.Conservative 08:01, 6 September 2012 (EDT)
Guy, I'm Christian. Catholic. My religion is not "evolutionist". You know this. I'd rather debate you. I've challenged you before. You're the one who makes strong claims. Defend them. My Opus Dei center has a spearkerphone that can record calls. Let me know when you want to do the recorded debate and you can put it on Youtube. I don't know how to do it but you talk about it so much I'm sure you do. I am looking forward to hearing from you. I put my email address up there. Nate 00:07, 8 September 2012 (EDT) It is a religion: "Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, 'Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.'" Given the high traffic evolution/atheism articles, I have no shortage of unreasonable people wanting to debate me so you have to bring something bigger to the table to spark my interest. Ask fellow evolutionist Richard Dawkins to participate in the debate (Given his recent big loss in web traffic, he may want to participate). :) Conservative 00:20, 8 September 2012 (EDT) Are you saying I am not Christian? If you don't want to debate me why do you personally insult me and my Church? Going out of your way to do that and then complaining that I'm not bringing enough to the table for you to debate me looks like cowardice. Who is the unreasonable one? You keep talking about debating. It's not like you're too busy! Let's set up a very short debate so you can prove you have some machismo. I think you have none. I suggest we debate something fundamental so that I can prove to our audience that you know nothing except where your quotes are. I think you're just afraid you'll lose a theology debate to a guy who works in a steel plant. Prove me wrong. Nate 09:33, 8 September 2012 (EDT)I have no problem with people who work in steel plants. Tomorrow, I am attending a gathering with a man who works at a steel plant. Nevertheless, you are still going to have to bring a lot more to the table to spark my interest. Consider asking members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to participate in the debate. I don't think that will help you though as they no doubt cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.
By the way, User: GregG wrote to the Roman Catholic scientist Ken Miller some time ago about the 15 questions for evolutionists. He hasn't received a response. No doubt it was just an oversight on Ken Miller's part. :) Conservative 22:36, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
I think he's busy (he has an actual job). Nevertheless, it is interesting that he has not even auto-replied or declined. I can try contacting him by phone, though. GregG 23:32, 8 September 2012 (EDT) Nate, I think you can say Ciao! Ciao! to evolutionism! [5] I am open to debating you. You just have to give me an offer I can't refuse! :) Arrivederci! Conservative 01:41, 10 September 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)
Hi. This edit should be re-reverted; it's a redirect fixing an error in the title of the article (upper-case "T" for "the"), bringing it to the correct page. I'll do it, I just didn't want you to think I was reverting you for no good reason. Thanks. MattyD 12:25, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
I have no problem with your reversion. Karajou 12:37, 14 September 2012 (EDT)Could you please take a look here? Many thanks. MattyD 09:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
you just blocked 11 users in five minutes. not bad :)Cmurphynz 02:17, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Apparently, those claiming the immanent death of this wiki are not aware that I have a myriad of aces up my sleeves! Behold, Wikilog!
"Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That's because they were able to connect experiences they've had and synthesize new things." - Steve Jobs
Untold contributors and web traffic is just on the cusp of the horizon! Conservative 20:30, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
This requires a new version of Mediawiki, that CP does not support. Also, I cannot imagine it would be helpful at all in the goal of being an encyclopedia.brenden 20:51, 24 September 2012 (EDT) "This requires a new version of Mediawiki, that CP does not support." Leave it up to a liberal to raise a trifling objection. Gentlemen, we can upgrade our wiki. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first online conservative encyclopedia with timely essays. Our wiki will be that wiki. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster![6] :) Conservative 21:05, 24 September 2012 (EDT) By the way, once the efforts to raise the prominence of Conservapedia's abortion article commence, I am looking forward to embed a pro-life video on the Conservapedia abortion article. Andy REALLY liked that idea. I previously embedded a pro-creation video on Conservapedia so it shouldn't be that hard to embed videos on Conservapedia since it was done before. In fact, we might be able to do it now. It is just a matter of time before all my extension requests are granted. :) Conservative 21:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)One other thing, speaking of upgrades, I plan on upgrading one of my prior initiatives to a whole new level. :) Plus, I plan on reintroducing a previous initiative of mine and bringing it to a whole new level too. :) Conservative 22:24, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Can you help support my request for an upgrade of the software so we can cover subjects with an ampersand in their titles like AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion? Thanks, GregG ::22:38, 24 September 2012 (EDT)Maybe that will come with a new MediaWiki upgrade required for Wikilog. Conservative 22:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
Karajou, have heard from Miss G lately? I was going to show her some of the pro-life content at Conservapedia.Conservative 22:43, 24 September 2012 (EDT) You know Peter LaBarbera really liked the some of the very well sourced articles I created. Do you think Wikilog could open a lot more conservative blogger doors? Something to consider, isn't? Conservative 22:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT) Given I can't seem to put stuff on your talk page Conservative and you seem to be active here I'll put this here. I've had a few ideas on the Christianity/Atheism and success/lack of in motorsport. These include people like Mark Webber thanking "the man upstairs" for lucky breaks and the like in races (and no I don't think he is meaning the stewards). Jenson Button and Felipe Massa also say similar things. Robert Kubica would be a good example to as he was carrying an item of Pope John Paul II (can't remember what it is) in his race suit when he had his massive crash during the 2007 Canadian GP in which he was lucky to only get a few cuts and a mild concussion (which was the reason why he didn't race in the next race due to the FIA's very strict and appropriate policy on concussions). He also had the same item with him when he won his first race in canada the following year and when he survived the crash he had in a rally car, in which was only 1cm from being impaled by a guard rail. Alex Zanardi, also a devout christian, survived an accident in germany in 2001, in which both his legs where amputated and he only had less than a litre of blood in his body (something which was thought to be unservivable at the time) his recovery is just as remarkable with him winning 2 gold medals in hand cycling at the recent paralympics in London. I have a few more ideas if you are interested. Regards Dvergne 23:02, 24 September 2012 (EDT) Contact NASCAR. Tell them your idea. Maybe they think their customers need convincing that atheism is bad and they will help you out.Conservative 23:21, 24 September 2012 (EDT) Nascar followers are fine they don't need convincing, its some of the F1 fans that need convincing (and thier number is tiny compared to the amount who follow and watch F1 as there are about 200 million viewers for every grand prix). Sorry to be of nuisance to you, I'll try and start the essay myself and see if you have any pointers. It's more the F1 blogs I'm aiming for as they are always eager for new stories so they can increase their page views as most use that to be part of the F1 travelling circus (ie go the all the GP's) Regards Dvergne 23:28, 24 September 2012 (EDT) Very well, lets bring this up on the Conservapedia:Community Portalbrenden 00:04, 25 September 2012 (EDT) I do however have a couple of contacts with Racing for Jesus and Racing for a reason that may be interested in the question evolution campaign by putting a couple of logos on their cars. Dvergne 00:34, 25 September 2012 (EDT)Cheers for blocking the spammers, all they are doing is wasting time, both ours and theirs. If I ever see a user with a nonsensical name that has just created an account I always mark their talk page as spam, does doing this not allow them to write anything in it because they never seem to be able to put their rubbish there if I do that. Do you know if there is any was to blog users from registering if they have a username over a certain length, or if their username is just random letter ? Kind Regards --Dvergne 03:14, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
Cheers for blocking user:Mn18Hp23. I undid the other edits he made as he added some liberal lies to the pages. Regards. Dvergne 21:39, 5 October 2012 (EDT)I read this recently at a wiki inhabited by many tightfisted atheists:
"That leaves us in a bit of a conundrum. Doing nothing will mean that our community is now "capped" at what it can support and further growth can not be supported. It means relying on technical issues and slow response to drive down or drive away additional traffic. This keeps our "costs" the same but is not ideal, and may ultimately be a destructive path to take. But doing something requires some major changes." See: Atheism and uncharitableness
What to do, what to do! How about a paywall like the liberals at the New York Times are doing? That wouldn't work. Who would pay to view that website? Nobody! It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article on it despite the fact that Wikipedia has a large, liberal, atheist contingent. Conservative 03:23, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
I tried to add some text to the cartoon, but wasn't allowed to do so:
"On Thursday October 11 2012, the Democratic Vice President Joe Biden and the Republican candidate for this office, Congressman Paul Ryan hold their only debate before the Presidential Election 2012."
I'd appreciate such a text to be included either under the cartoon or at the page of the cartoon to give a visitor to the main page some links into Conservapedia: as I said repeatedly, the Template:Mainpageleft should - well - lure a reader deeper into this site.
AugustO 08:11, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
Sorry to disappoint you, but I add captions and/or dialogue to the cartoons prior to posting, and no captions will be included afterwards. Karajou 12:05, 15 October 2012 (EDT) I don't think of a caption, more of a subtitle. But if this doesn't please you, perhaps this text could be added to the page of File:VP_debate.jpg. Then a visitor who clicks on the cartoon doesn't end in a cul-de-sac, but will find some more links into content of Conservapedia. AugustO 13:15, 15 October 2012 (EDT) Like a "read more about it" type of thing. I could go with that concept. Karajou 13:43, 15 October 2012 (EDT)Hi, I've made a more visually friendly template for the periodic table, which can be seen on my talk page. Given you made the current version, would it be possible to replace the that template version with the one I have created. Regards --Dvergne 22:10, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
Yes, by all means. Your version looks good. Karajou 01:06, 16 October 2012 (EDT) Cheers Dvergne 01:18, 16 October 2012 (EDT)Might be best if you just archive it so we can start a new one. It is pretty long at the moment. Cheers for blocking him by the way, Although I don't agree with conservatives latest posting (I find some of the content quite offensive) I don't think that abuse is the way to solve problems. regards Dvergne 01:15, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
Hello. I am a new editor here. I happened across the article for E-Sword, and noted that it has not been updated in about 5 years. The page was protected due to vandalism at the time. I would like to update the page, as the program has been significantly improved since that time. Since you are the one who protected the page (based on the page history), I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to unprotect the page so that I can edit it. Would that be possible, or is there some other preferred approach? Thanks in advance for your time! --Nouniquenames 00:06, 18 October 2012 (EDT)
Yes, please make improvements. Karajou 00:07, 18 October 2012 (EDT) Thank you! --Nouniquenames 00:31, 18 October 2012 (EDT) The page is updated now, in case you wanted to look over it. A request is in for an updated screenshot. Also, as I don't know who to ask this, when does the edit lock unlock in the morning? My understanding was that it is an overnight thing. Thankfully, it seems to engage after 02:00 EDT (01:00 EST). One of the times I can edit is until approximately then. I understood it to unlock again in the morning, but I have been unable to edit as late as around 14:00 EDT (13:00 EST). I was hoping to be able to do some late morning / early afternoon editing before work as my schedule allows. Can you confirm that the lock is working correctly or give me some guidance with it? --Nouniquenames 01:50, 19 October 2012 (EDT)thanks for unlocking the page. fixed it a bit. Cmurphynz 11:15, 19 October 2012 (EDT)
I attempted to create a redirect at [7] from the short form C&MA to the Christian & Missionary Alliance (which uses that as a short-form reference). The software does not seem to like the ampersand, and treats the typed text as "C" (which seems to redirect logically to the programming language).
It may be best, if possible, to delete the redirect I created. I wanted to bring it to your attention. --Nouniquenames 13:45, 20 October 2012 (EDT)
Deleted. Karajou 14:28, 20 October 2012 (EDT)Nice to see the bird articles are being updated. I didn't really want the page to be deleted, what i wanted was to spark a discussion to see if we want to keep these pages in the project. Dvergne 03:28, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
The original idea for Conservapedia is that it is to be a family-friendly online encyclopedia, so we are expanding and adding a great deal to it. Birds included. :) Karajou 03:34, 21 October 2012 (EDT) Would it be ok if I started writing / finishing some of the bird articles ? Dvergne 03:02, 22 October 2012 (EDT) Yes it is OK; pick any article. Karajou 03:04, 22 October 2012 (EDT) There seems to be a lack of australian parrots I will start making them. But will need you to upload the pics when I need that to happen. Double-check the categories; I believed I uploaded most of them here: [8] Karajou 03:33, 22 October 2012 (EDT) You haven't done cockatiel yet :( Dvergne 08:36, 23 October 2012 (EDT)On a completely unrelated topic, I found that there are a ton of articles an boats from AA to well AG, they seem like they are just cut and pastes from the dictionary of american warships. Why are they there and should they be deleted or should the project be continued. Given they are just cut and pastes from the dictionary or american warships I would personally think that those taken word for word from there be deleted unless the ship is especially noteworthy. Dvergne 08:36, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
I agree. But our detractors love hitting us with "plagiarism" charges about these and similar articles made from material in the public domain, and I think these articles should remain as a testimony against them. It's because they like Wikipedia so much that they cannot tolerate anyone else doing the exact same thing Wikipedia editors have done themselves. Karajou 11:27, 23 October 2012 (EDT) Fair enough, I just think that if people where looking for info on those ships they probably would have gone to the source (as the author of those articles on this site did. Back to birds, would it be possible to have more than one image for birds like the cockatiel and budgie who can have vastly differences between the domesticated and wild plumage ? Dvergne 23:11, 23 October 2012 (EDT) I'll probably delete many ship articles anyway, because of the lack of noteworthiness you mentioned. As to adding more bird pics, yes, that will happen as needed. There are differences between male and female, wild and domestic, and so on, and we'll add them in. Karajou 23:26, 23 October 2012 (EDT)Hello: I see you reverted my addition of detail to the article above. The article is fairly short and lacks some detail. I wrote it on a break this afternoon. I was not at home to cite from my library, but did not think it substantial changes. It is correct info. per: Weale, Adrian (2010), The SS: A New History, pp. 164, 168.; Lumsden, Robin (2002), A Collector's Guide To: The Allgemeine – SS, pp. 83, 84 and McNab, Chris (2009), The SS: 1923–1945, p. 158. I certainly don't want any problems, herein. This is a good website and I am sorry you guys have to spend so many hours on vandalism and spam. Anyway, I will be happy to cite the entries, if you would like. Cheers, John.
May you pls. unlock this page, I believe the reasons for locking it have disappeared (activity of this user). I'd like to have a chance to work occasionally on that page, if possible, thanx.--AK 09:52, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I added a section to the King Tiger Tank article as to the Jagdtiger. But then decided, after some addition, it should be its own article page. I was hoping you could help me by finding a photo and uploading it to the page. I don't know where one can get a free use photo and upload it for this encyclopedia. Cheers, John. JohnJustice 13:16, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
Done. Karajou 09:48, 5 November 2012 (EST) Great photo, thanks. I hope to write articles on the Tiger I, M4 Sherman tank and JagdPanther, when I have the time. Cheers, JohnJustice 10:55, 5 November 2012 (EST) I just wrote an article for the Jagdpanther. If you have the time could you find a photo for the article? I don't know how to upload, nor determine a fair-use photo. Thanks, --JohnJustice 22:12, 14 November 2012 (EST)Hey there, I'm not really well versed with wiki editing so I hope this isn't the wrong way to request assistance. I previously was the user WalterP, and couldn't remember my password (or see a thing for password recovery but I could be blind.) Would it be possible for you to delete WalterP and this account so I could re-register as WalterP? Or is it ok for me to use this account even if it's named WalterP2? I don't want to make it look like I have more than one account.
Thanks! WalterP2 15:39, 8 November 2012 (EST)
Hello. I was hoping you might unlock the Karl Rove page so that I could add a section on his status as a Rino Backer, as well as his 1% success rate in the 2012 general election. Thanks, WilliamWB 22:10, 8 November 2012 (EST)
I'm sure you know who I am. I am a sock puppeteer on this wiki. And I have come here to apologise. This is my real name, and I have had a sudden realisation that God is the only one who could have created us in this world. I saw the mountains of evidence throughout this wiki and changed my mind.
I hope to model myself after Shockofgod, and I humbly ask you, as a Christian and a person of forgiveness, something Jesus Christ our Lord preached so well, to accept my apology. JNeumann 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)
Dear Karajou: I agree that CP should be spam free. I was surprized that you deleted the short article that I created on P90X. I am not affiliated with that particular workout, and did not know anything about it until I started researching Paul Ryan's biography. He is a big fan of the workout and recruited other Congressmen to join him in doing it. So, I included it in his biography. I created the stub article to avoid a red link and to avoid leaving questions in the reader's mind as to what P90X was, because I did not know myself when I started my research. Anyone else who starts reading news reports on Ryan will wonder as well, so I think we need the article. Please reconsider. Thanks, Wschact 09:56, 16 November 2012 (EST)
I took your advice, re-read it, and agree with you. The article is restored, and I stand corrected :) Karajou 10:19, 16 November 2012 (EST) Thank you for your consideration. Wschact 11:01, 16 November 2012 (EST)Sent you an email good sir! Hope your holiday was great.--IDuan 15:09, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Finished that email we talked about. Let me know if it needs any touch ups or additions.--IDuan 00:54, 26 November 2012 (EST)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 19:25, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Let me ask you a question, AugustO...could Jesus have dictated Hebrews to Paul? Karajou 01:10, 26 November 2012 (EST) Pauls was inspired by the Holy Spirit - and he tells us so. But he never claimed that Jesus dictated something to him, especially not verbatim. --AugustO 02:46, 26 November 2012 (EST) I didn't ask you if Jesus did; I asked you if Jesus could have have done it. Karajou 03:49, 26 November 2012 (EST) Bullseye! Obviously with Jesus Christ everything is possible. But is it plausible? Isn't it misleading the reader to say that the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it? This idea is invented by Andrew Schlafly and therefore is his original work. In Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia we read: We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. So the statement should be properly labeled! Something like: In 2012, Andrew Schlafly proposed the possibility that the epistle was written or dictated by Jesus Christ himself. --AugustO 04:16, 26 November 2012 (EST) What I think you need to do is to think about the fact that 1. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one (1 John 5:7); 2. if the Holy Spirit is doing the inspiring, then God is doing it; 3. if Jesus can stop Saul of Tarsus dead in his tracks on the Damascus Road after the Resurrection, if He can speak to John while he was on Patmos, then he can tell Paul what to write down in any of the epistles...in effect, making Him the author. In short, God does the inspiring, God does the dictating, God does the authoring; Moses, Jonah, Matt and Paul just work the pens. Karajou 10:26, 26 November 2012 (EST) Perhaps that is why I'm so often accused to be nit-picky: the Ten Commandments where dictated by God, written down by Moses. Here we have Gods Own words. The Gospels are the inspired truth of God in the words of the authors. Andrew Schlafly claims that Jesus himself wrote or dictated this epistle. That is much more than inspiring the author - or just telling him what to write down. And it is certainly not a plausible theory! --AugustO 10:42, 26 November 2012 (EST) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16. "All scripture" means everything in the Bible, Genesis to Revelation. Paul just supplied the ink. Karajou 11:18, 26 November 2012 (EST)So is it fair to say that you have no problem with including the statement "the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it" into the article Epistle to the Hebrews? --AugustO 11:23, 26 November 2012 (EST)
It's more obvious that you have a problem against it, August. If the human writer of Hebrews wasn't inspired to write it by God, then the above quote from Timothy is a complete and utter lie. Is Timothy in the New Testament? Is Timothy just a few letters behind Hebrews? Did Paul know Timothy? Is God's Word going to outlast Heaven and earth? Either all Scripture is inspired by God, or it's not. Karajou 11:39, 26 November 2012 (EST) All Scripture is inspired by God, but not all Scripture is written or dictated by God Himself, resulting in a verbatim transcript. The only example for this are the Ten Commandments (and perhaps Mene, Mene, Tekel, u-Pharsin). Therefore for me it is not plausible that Jesus wrote or dictated the Epistle to the Hebrews. And I ask again: User:Karajou, is it fair to say that you have no problem with including the statement "the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it" into the article Epistle to the Hebrews? --AugustO 12:07, 26 November 2012 (EST) August, if you don't think it is plausible that Jesus wrote or dictated the Epistle to the Hebrews, then what specific alternative authors do you suggest? Surely you agree that someone wrote it.--Andy Schlafly 11:31, 26 November 2012 (EST)I was talking to our tech guy at work about spam and where it came from and ways to stop it on forums, blogs and the like. He said their are organisations like spamhaus that collect details of various large spamming organisations so as to allow for those people to be blocked. He recommended that blocking those IP ranges would be a way to stop some spamming, so I did that as you can see. He also recommended that a good way to stop spam was to ask the spammers a question rather than use captcha or recaptcha as they basically just use cheap slave labour to solve them. Having an actual question would allow general users to register whilst stopping a large number of spammers. Dvergne 05:05, 14 December 2012 (EST)
I have also found a site called; stopforumspam, which lists known IP ranges that spam forums, wiki's and blogs. It seems that sites like Wikipedia and various large forums use this to collate where they are getting spam from and then block those IP's. I will start blocking IP's from those ranges as well. Dvergne 21:42, 14 December 2012 (EST)I've set up a honeypot wiki, to track and monitor wiki spammers. If you want, I can give you checkuser priviledges there, so you can partake in the experiment/project yourself. Url, if you are interested. brenden 23:27, 17 December 2012 (EST)
It seems you last edit kinda killed MPR, with a link now half missing. Dvergne 21:15, 19 December 2012 (EST)
Fixed. I think what happened was the page did not load properly when edited, and got erased when posted. Karajou 21:22, 19 December 2012 (EST) Yeah, its always a pain when that happens. Dvergne 21:28, 19 December 2012 (EST) I'm blaming my own internet connection with the problem. It slowed down and sputtered during the past hour, and probably caused the MPR problem. Karajou 21:33, 19 December 2012 (EST)I saw that you recently reverted an edit by another editor referring to Barack Obama's religion as Muslim. The editor placed a citation needed tag on the article, which was not is dispute of that information, but merely requesting an appropriate source be added to confirm that information.
I did some research on the subject myself, since I find it doubtful Obama is a Muslim, and the following links all would agree he is, at best, a Christian (possibly lasped) with, at best, some academic knowledge of Muslim traditions due to his family upbringing, but he himself is not an active believer in the Muslim faith.
As evidence, I present the following links:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1969392
https://my.barackobama.com/page/share/christian
http://atheism.about.com/od/barackobamareligionfaith/a/ObamaReligion.htm
http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-inauguration.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27775757/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155315/many-americans-cant-name-obamas-religion.aspx
I personally am not a fan of many policies of President Obama nor believe America has been served well by many of his policies, but by the same token I categorically reject the idea of having an article on a website purported to be educational which labels him as part of a religious tradition which he is not a practicing member, which his own words, his own church affiliations, and multiple news source all agree is true.
I do not wish to cause trouble for Conservapedia, so since this article seems to be an object of contention, I am presenting evidence for why his religious affiliation should be changed to reflect fact (he is Christian), and before I did anything, I felt it best to inform an administrator about my proposed course of action.
PatrickMarion 15:31, 31 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion
I would agree with you, but... First, there's no good way to approach this topic. Whether Muslim or Christian or atheist or agnostic, putting a cite tag on the block in Obama's article would be a good idea as well as a poor idea; there's just no good answer here. Second, for the "Muslim" side of things, we have it on record that while he does not go to a mosque every Friday, he has given his support to Muslims everywhere world-wide, beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As far as being a Christian, he is certainly not one. He can spout that label all he wants, but a Christian follows Christ. A Christian will never support abortion, same-sex marriage, attacks on the wealthy; nor would he give support to Muslims anywhere in the world when these same groups (are you reading this, Muslim Brotherhood?) are viciously attacking Christians up to and including murder. Karajou 15:47, 31 December 2012 (EST) I understand your position, sir, and I do find that many of the President's actions are at odds with his stated faith, so perhaps adding (alleged) next to his religion identification would suffice, and the article can explain why the label does not agree with his publicly expressed morality.PatrickMarion 16:02, 31 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion
How about something like the following: "Christian (claimed)"; "Muslim (alleged)"; "Agnostic/atheist" ... those would have to be proven, of course; "Socialist/communist" ... he could very well worship both of those philosophies, much like being going to church. Or a line that says "see below", and in the article there would be a subtopic detailing his Christian claims, his Muslim history, reasons why he's not one or the other, and so on. I like this aspect a little better because this site and others made claims he was Muslim; if that is the case we have to explain it in detail. If he's Christian, we have to explain in detail the origins of the claims, as well as why he's actually not. Socialist/communist, atheist/agnostic, yes we must explain that as well. Karajou 00:43, 1 January 2013 (EST) That sounds like a good call. Since this a website which examines topics from a conservative point of view, your proposed solution sounds like it would cover all the bases equally while adhering to the POV policies of Conservapedia. PatrickMarion 02:42, 1 January 2013 (EST)PatrickMarion It would be on a topic possibly called "Obama's religious beliefs", and would explain it several ways. In the Muslim portion, what is there to establish his Muslim belief system (early education, etc), and what is he doing today that would be supportive or combative to the Muslim religion; likewise his Christian belief system, where did he go to church, what kind of church, is what he believes compatible with what the Bible says he should be doing as a Christian. It could be a stand-alone article itself. Karajou 02:52, 1 January 2013 (EST)I know my infinite block is coming here in just a few seconds but... how do you expect this place to ever grow if you just block everyone you disagree with? You ever try just talking to people? --GeralfM 11:48, 25 January 2013 (EST)
And what were the reasons why I block people? Please tell me, the world is waiting. Karajou 12:34, 25 January 2013 (EST) See, it is hard to talk to trolls - like yourself - who are only here to cause problems, and it is based on those problems that I block those trolls. Like yourself. Now go take a bath. Karajou 12:41, 25 January 2013 (EST)This is meant to be more of a private message, so feel free to delete this if you want. I don't know you history with this MattyD, but to ban him for saying that a link between Conservapedia and Sandy Hook Hoaxers problematic seems to be going a little to far. I realize that he thought/said that it was Conservapedia's official twitter feed...but seeing the Conservapedia logo, that could be an honest mistake. Whatever his intent though, he was right....linking Conservapedia to Sandy Hook hoaxers is problematic. The author of the tweet appeared to endorse the nutty idea that Sandy Hook did not occur at all. Furthermore, he did it with a logo that made it look like it was the view of conservapedia. If I were to do that with my company's logo, I would be unemployed. The fact that the article also spoke of the media's failings is irrelevant. You could probably find Holocaust deniers, or "truthers" complaining about the faults of media, but linking to them would be foolish. --PeterNant 19:51, 25 January 2013 (EST)
Keep him banned. He went for the tattletale angle. He wanted to create as much noise as possible. All he did was read our critic website and decided to take action. He can read there all he wants but he can't edit here any more.--Jpatt 20:07, 25 January 2013 (EST)Take a look at User:Richt03. I think he's taking the micky. Or he has a dash-hyphen fetish. (Never seen one of them before!) I've banned him for the day but I think he needs stopping. If he gets into colons it may be too late. AlanE 22:17, 31 January 2013 (EST)
Looked, saw, and he's gone now. Karajou 01:04, 1 February 2013 (EST)The articles I've checked seem to be okay (Ra, Ramses II, Ancient Egypt) - as was the article on Magdeburg. I googled some of the content of the first revisions, and it seems that those aren't copies of other articles neither. Perhaps you could recreate the other articles on Egypt in this list (one or two a day), so that we can check them? There are a few articles on German subjects (Claus von Stauffenberg, Max von Baden) which I'd like to see, too...
I don't think that being a creation of parodist is enough to delete an article: only parodies should be deleted. The articles on Egyptian subjects seem to be original, and contain quite a few nice pictures - which seem to be duly copyrighted, too.
--AugustO 10:37, 8 February 2013 (EST)
Lucky you caught that pathetic vandal before he made an even bigger mess. Well done mate ! Dvergne 08:40, 10 February 2013 (EST)
Can you please redirect the article Libyan War 2011 to Libyan War? --Alex00 10:41, 10 February 2013 (EST)
and the article Libyan uprising 2011 --Alex00 10:49, 13 February 2013 (EST)Thanks for adding the categories - it makes it easier to put pictures to various articles. Could you please restore Amun, Karnak and King list? Thanks again! --AugustO 14:57, 11 February 2013 (EST)
I half expected Markman to revert the talk page because of an earlier discussion on my talk page where I asked him to contribute to it. I didn't think he would be so maliciously petty though. 300 words in 21 edits in 52 months is not a talkfest. About 6 words a month. To me it was a bit of light relief. Innocent merriment. For you to end the whole thing with no discussion I find extremely disappointing. AlanE 12:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)
OK, K, why? What have I done to deserve this? AlanE 21:10, 6 March 2013 (EST)
Specifically, what is wrong with these edits? The article is 5 years out of date and in need of updating. I have more than two months work time in it already. OscarO 21:37, 6 March 2013 (EST)
Hello, can you please upload the new flag of Burma ? --Alex00 10:15, 20 March 2013 (EDT)
And can you rename the File:Flag of Libya 1951.png to File:Flag of Libya.png ? Hi there are no flags or coat of arms of the following countries:Dominican Republic, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Saint Kitts and Nevis --Alex00 14:36, 26 March 2013 (EDT) And Trinidad and Tobago --Alex00 14:38, 26 March 2013 (EDT) I'll have to search for them a little later, but they will be found and added. Karajou 14:39, 26 March 2013 (EDT) I dont want to be unpolite but when will you uploud those flags and coat of arms? --Alex00 12:15, 7 April 2013 (EDT)Still trying to limit my talk activity lol (not that it's excessive but not sure how it's scored..by word count or number of times, cause sometimes I can occasionally get wordy!) but anyways, I was fixing to create an article that was deleted (for the television show Breaking Bad) i saw that it had previously been deleted by you. I wanted to know if it was safe to recreate it as i wasn't sure if his contribution was wildly inappropriate or Conservapedia would have objections for it being listed as one of their articles. --DavidS 02:39, 31 March 2013 (EDT)
I noticed you blocked that user as "sock of Brendan". I would like to assure you that Rmacdugal was not me. The most probable reason was that the user simply signed up from one of the school's computers. brenden 14:20, 4 April 2013 (EDT)
I unblocked him on your advice. Karajou 15:02, 4 April 2013 (EDT)I think that this user is possibly pulling our leg and is actually a sock of Horace (given that the original phrasing Carpe'diem was from a work by Horace Flaccus). Could you please run a detailed checkuser on this account. Cheers Dvergne 09:02, 6 April 2013 (EDT)
Hi. Mind if I undelete Liberals and friendship? I think Michael Medved and others make some good points about the political pressure liberals put on their "friends". --Ed Poor Talk 17:29, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
Please do. Karajou 09:36, 8 April 2013 (EDT)Can you please uploud these pictures? http://middle-east-info.org/league/iran/usdiplomatshostageiniran.gif --Alex00 12:52, 11 April 2013 (EDT) Or this http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/9/30/201193041012723734_8.jpg and this one https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTCdYRmvD9ZyPzo-HYnN3Aqm3SRe2kWRmCRWeB1r_h71EAKTJh6PWnwmgvrJFPvEVvm7jMrdQZm-oxMq5ZTggjadYLkfNnUe_9rjFTxE7n5jVDFBw9hcScNJQqzKitfPAThsuID4EYNXk/s1600/Gadafi.jpg --Alex00 13:01, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
Hi, I created a page for this church at wikipedia but they deleted it (despite the fact it met their so-called "standards", which are arbitrarily applied). It's my work entirely, saved on my computer. So, I'd like to try to post it again.--Yeoberry 09:03, 12 April 2013 (EDT) p.s. I also wrote most of the article on Gail Riplinger.--Yeoberry 09:10, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
I need to know why you deleted my very valid questions (with provided evidence) from the main talk page for "RW references" while Conservative regularly posts references to it on the Main page as "an atheist wiki". I did not like to RW and I did not support them, I linked to graphs on Alexa.com disproving Conservative's uncited claims. I'm going to be completely honest, I personally feel like it can be only one of two explanations at this point:
There's a double standard consisting of conservative being able to do whatever he wants and everyone else expected to fall in line behind him... It was the fact that I used "RW" instead of "an atheist wiki" as a codeword for that other site...I sincerely hope it's the latter if it's either of those, but I hope even more that it is some other explanation. I look forward to hearing back from you. Fnarrow 09:13, 20 April 2013 (EDT)
You know how quite a few of the pages about birds you created do not have much text or only have text and a picture. Well I had an idea that maybe it should be suggested that new users add content to those articles. That way we would weed out troublemakers whilst also adding content. Would love to hear your thoughts regarding this issue. Cheers, Dick Dvergne 00:51, 21 April 2013 (EDT)
A large number of them do not have much beyond a taxonomy box, but they were put in place as it just to get them properly categorized. Anyone is free to add content as needed. Karajou 01:54, 21 April 2013 (EDT)As a administrator can you unblock the page Kentucky Fried Chicken, so i could write on it?--Alex00 13:16, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
Hi, Karajou. I offered to let a recently blocked user return, provided he follows my advice. Is this okay? --Ed Poor Talk 18:03, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
It's Okay; unblock him. Karajou 22:20, 28 April 2013 (EDT) I did. Thanks! --Ed Poor Talk 09:28, 29 April 2013 (EDT)I blocked and warned Karegador, because of his Women in combat edit; see his talk page. --Ed Poor Talk 11:06, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
I thought his edits were pretty silly, too. Karajou 11:23, 30 April 2013 (EDT)Could we have an article called Old Testament moral rules and modern interpretatinos of odd-sounding passages like Deuteronomy 22:28-29? We could present the rebuttal to the anti-Christian point that the newbie was trying to support. --Ed Poor Talk 11:55, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
I think we should have such a page. Karajou 11:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)Okay, I'm just getting started and don't have time to finish anything today. The deleted article now redirects to Old Testament morality, which in turn redirects to Rape#Punishment for rape. --Ed Poor Talk 12:08, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
Hi, I feel you might be the most knowledgeable about this topic, so, do you know what the process for naming ships are? Is there any protocol, or is it simply a committee-based process?
Thanks, brenden 00:32, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Ship naming is the responsibility of the Secretary of the Navy, after input submitted to the Chief of Naval Operations. This website [9] should help you out. Karajou 00:45, 6 May 2013 (EDT)Karajou, as the title of this section indicates, I've been thinking about the Titanothere picture and related questions you supplied under the heading: Pretty Dogmatic on the Main Talk Page and trying to come up with the best way to express myself in regards to them. Unfortunately, in that intervening time the thread has been slightly derailed and I wanted to make sure you and I got the chance to discuss this one on one. Therefore, I figured this would be the best place to respond. Total honesty, my answer to all of your questions at this point would have to be "I don't know." I know nothing about the authors or the animals depicted(other than what a quick Google search turned up...), and therefore cannot speak to their methods, claims or anything else on the specific topic of your question. I assume (please, correct me if I'm wrong so I can answer properly) that the purpose of your question was to ask if evolution in general is "falsifiable" and that is a question I can answer through my personal beliefs. First, let me state the following to clarify my starting point here:
If those findings were presented as a "theory" then I have no problem with it as the author is therefore simply just stating "this is the answer which best fits the current evidence as viewed with currently available scientific techniques." This makes the statement falsifiable by leaving open the possibility that new evidence and techniques could change our understanding of the topic (as appeared to have happened with the Titanotheres(WP article has nice chart, couldn't find it else where, sorry) based upon the new classifications presented in 2004-2005) thereby falsifying the earlier conclusions. In this case the answer to your questions would be "yes, the statements are true and falsifiable". However, if they are presented as a "fact" or "scientific law" then the authors are claiming that their conclusions are tested, repeatable and therefore cannot be disproved. In the latter case, I would say that the answer to your questions were "no, they are not true statements because the author is claiming they are unfalsifiable".
Now, for the second implied question (Once again, please correct me if my assumption is wrong so i can answer properly) is "Why eliminate God from science?" The only answer I can give is that in my opinion, I could be proven wrong in the future, God is currently and will always be beyond the ability of science to measure or even detect. This does not mean God doesn't exist, it only means that science can never speak either way on the existence of God. I hope this clarifies my stance as an Agnostic Christian and how I do not see any contradiction in that position. Thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent response; I'm looking forward to hearing back from you and continuing this discussion with out the intrusions from trolls and vandals on the main page. Thanks, Fnarrow 16:39, 6 May 2013 (EDT)
Would really like to hear your thoughts on this... Thanks, Fnarrow 00:54, 10 May 2013 (EDT) For the titanothere pic, the author claimed descent via evolution from one animal (the one at the bottom) through to the one at the top. What he did - and what others continue to do to this day - is to look at the animal bones and pronounce a judgement. That's it. They say "look at the animals", and we stand there looking at this made-up sequence one to another, and we are to assume a change took place. That most certainly is not science; it is little more than a guessing game based on opinion and innuendo, and yes, the typical evolutionist who makes such a claim cannot get past the first step of the scientific method when push comes to shove after a demand is made that he prove it. For that reason this website cannot and will not accept evolution as anything other than a mere theory. As far as God is concerned, I would have to agree with some people who say that God is not testable; He doesn't fall under the "falsifiability" test. That does not mean He doesn't exist; to me, it means He doesn't have to cooperate. For example, a couple years ago some college kid(s) sent me a flyer of their efforts to conduct a scientific survey; I did not answer. They sent it again. I ignored them. A third time, and and I got the idea that they were going to demand it; I shut them down via the college administration. The point here is I did not have to cooperate at all with anyone conducting an unwanted survey, and for similar reasons God is just going to ignore someone making a scientific falsifiability test demand on Him. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Karajou 01:21, 10 May 2013 (EDT)Could you please explain to me why you reverted my edits to the Whales page? I thought that all my edits were quite reasonable.--DTSavage 11:23, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
Please explain the word "cetartiodactyla". Karajou 11:40, 7 May 2013 (EDT) Sure. Recently, scientists have begun using "cetartiodactyla" to represent a monophyletic group containing both the cetaceans and the even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls).--DTSavage 11:47, 7 May 2013 (EDT) I don't want this to turn into some kind of edit war, but i do believe that most of my edits were of good quality, so I'm going to re-revert most of my edits, though I'll leave out the changes I made that refer specifically to cetartiodactyla. I hope that's an OK compromise.--DTSavage 18:42, 7 May 2013 (EDT) OK, definately no edit war. This term "cetartiodactyla" is a new term, and yes, it was done to suggest a relationship between whales and deer, cows, pigs, sheep, and so on. But it also suggests descent, meaning some time ago some ancient deer decided on its own to give up salad for a career in fishing. And just who's to say it's true? Why not call it "chiroptocetacea"? Do whales use sonar like bats? How about "homocetacea"? Do some people claim whales have the same brain power as man? In this evolution business, there is always someone making something up without any supporting evidence beyond their own observations, and they insist that it's true, that we must believe it. Karajou 21:09, 7 May 2013 (EDT) Reasonable concerns. I guess I'll stick to making edits to biology-related articles that won't stir up creation vs evolution debate.--DTSavage 22:19, 7 May 2013 (EDT) My own preference for the various articles is to have a subtopic titled "evolutionary claims", which is what evolutionary scientists have stated over the years about it. Of course, it will also be refuted, but both sides of the argument will be presented, leaving the reader to make up his/her own mind. Karajou 01:37, 8 May 2013 (EDT)You recently locked the abortion article, stating, "Will not have the subject watered down, there's nothing medical about it." I have two problems with the lock. First, this was a day or so after Coservative reverted my edits (no reason given), and so the article wasn't even being actively vandalized* at the time. Second, the edits I had made may have seemed to "water down" the issue, but seeked only for a more factual article. For example, when I changed "liberals" to "many liberals," I was only trying to be correct; some liberal are pro-life, just as some conservatives are pro-abortion. I additionally updated the abortion count from 54m to 56m and cited a source on fetal pain, which should strengthen the article. GVolkov 21:07, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
Only asking because I have an interest in The US Military and intend to write some essays on it. I don't want "step on your toes" so if you spot any incorrect information I will take no offence if it is edited. In fact I would welcome it. Also would a Band of Brothers article be appropriate for the Greatest Conservative Movies/TV category? To me it does but I have to say although I am quite knowledgeable about the US Military, American political definitions somewhat baffle me. Thanks --Patmac 21:51, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
I see you deleted the sarcy remark by the last user. Rank is no reflection on the character of a soldier/sailor/airman. Privates, captains or generals are all worthy of respect.--Patmac 14:53, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
User: Brendon is attempting to engage in liberal censorship of civil discussions because he is unhappy on how the liberal side fared in a recent discussion. Brendon recently did this on the main page talk page on a discussion about liberal Christianity. I am beginning to think Brenden should lose his editing privileges for awhile or perhaps permanently.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Conservative 16:34, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
User:Karajou, I feel that your opinion would fair and non-partisan. I ask you, therefore, to quickly browse through the history of the offending page, and see really, who is at fault.Thanks again for your assistance, brenden 16:37, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
Hi. Could you unlock this article, please? The opening claim is false: details can be found on the talk page and verified here. Thanks, JohanZ 12:53, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Dear Karajou,
I see you blocked this user with the reason "Trolling: vandalism, nonsense inserted...just plain nuts". I only see three edits of his, none of which I think constitutes trolling or vandalism:
I'm not going to overturn your block without your permission, but I just wanted to let you know how I saw things with respect to this user so that you can (if you want) reevaluate whether the user should be blocked forever. Thanks, GregG 10:44, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
I've got to go pick my wife up from the airport so I do not have any more time to get bullied or try defending the article. Markman is adding gay pornography and a song about beating someone with a baseball bat to the Conservative Songs article. The other Ramones song is not what he says. Please have a look at this situation. Nate 21:43, 23 June 2013 (EDT)
One of the songs in question supports corporal punishment, the whole thing about the baseball bat is just an exaggeration for humor's sake. The other song in question portrays gays as promiscuous and depraved, just what conservatives have been saying about them all along. It seems as if NKeaton is simply trying to censor info that does not comport with his lib beliefs and his support for the homosexual agenda. - Markman 21:49, 23 June 2013 (EDT) I haven't checked Markman's contribs to that article (I disagree with the idea of "conservative songs" altogether), but his block comment of "idiot" was disquieting. brenden 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT) He was throwing accusations at me, I merely retaliated. - Markman 22:09, 23 June 2013 (EDT) You don't need to retaliate. At any rate, Mr. Schlafly agreed with Nate here, so it's really a moot point. brenden 22:11, 24 June 2013 (EDT)Please uploud the flag and the coat of arms of Benin, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.--JoeyJ 10:00, 30 June 2013 (EDT)
And I forgot the Republic of China.--JoeyJ 10:47, 30 June 2013 (EDT)Can you point to any specific block you found problematic? - Markman 07:29, 3 July 2013 (EDT)
The unwarranted blocks on users Eg, Brendan, Raphael; the instantaneous blocks on new users due to user names. Granted, some of the blocks were justified due to multiple socks and repeated vandalism - I have checked - but still, I do have check user and I have been checking. Karajou 13:49, 3 July 2013 (EDT) Eg is an obvious troll. Lebron is listed as an overrated sport star on CP, and all of sudden Eg starts praising him. It's highly obvious what's going on. And if that's not enough, look at his past insolence. I'm not going to touch him if he returns once more, but if I were a gambling man I would put all of my life savings on Eg getting blocked in the future by someone other than me. As for Rafael, I had a report about him being a sock of a vandal. The block was only temporary and I was planning to lift once his name cleared out. Finally, about blocks due to usernames... Here's what Mr. Schlafly had to tell me about this. Other than criticizing me for not using the proper block reason, he praised my "instantaneous blocks on new users due to user names". Surely it's not reasonable to tell me to stop enforcing Mr. Schlafly's own policies. - Markman 09:12, 4 July 2013 (EDT)
0 comments:
Post a Comment