User talk:Markman

(Difference between revisions)That's really enough of the in-fighting with you and Brenden - he shouldn't be reverting your post on Andy's page, but your block of Rafael for suspected sock-puppetry is out of line. You don't have checkuser privileges and that he gets along with another user is not sufficient evidence. Frankly it's a questionable block of Eg too.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)That's really enough of the in-fighting with you and Brenden - he shouldn't be reverting your post on Andy's page, but your block of Rafael for suspected sock-puppetry is out of line. You don't have checkuser privileges and that he gets along with another user is not sufficient evidence. Frankly it's a questionable block of Eg too.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT):Also you know it's ridiculous to block users with blocking privileges - he shouldn't be doing it to you; you shouldn't be doing it to him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:37, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

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

That's really enough of the in-fighting with you and Brenden - he shouldn't be reverting your post on Andy's page, but your block of Rafael for suspected sock-puppetry is out of line. You don't have checkuser privileges and that he gets along with another user is not sufficient evidence. Frankly it's a questionable block of Eg too.--IDuan 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Also you know it's ridiculous to block users with blocking privileges - he shouldn't be doing it to you; you shouldn't be doing it to him.--IDuan 14:37, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

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

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

I wouldn't worry about this. Karajou took a minute or two to learn oversighting. Mr. Mason will now become even more obscure than he already is and rightfully so. Conservative 00:12, 11 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

I know you've taken interest in voter ID just as I have, and I found out this week that the Arkansas Secretary of State has proposed rules to implement Arkansas' new voter ID law. [2]. I'm planning on writing up and submitting comments to fix several issues with the rules, and I was wondering whether you were planning on submitting comments or wanted to see what I am writing. Hopefully, if the rules are fixed as I suggest, the voter ID law should survive federal and state court challenges. Thanks, GregG 13:24, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

That's interesting. I wasn't planning on submitting any comments, but I'd be curious to see what you submit. My own view is that voter ID laws are not as significant as early voting laws.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

Andy, I think if Conservapedians could spend more time creating content rather than fighting spammers that they would do so if given the opportunity.

Why don't you add the feature to the wiki that fights spammers that Brenden says works great at his wiki?

Here is the informmation:

I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. Here is the information for this extention: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QuestyCaptcha brenden 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

I hope this helps. Conservative 10:30, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

User:Conservative reverted my recent edits without explanation and protected the page. Since there is no way to contact U:C and I don't see it likely that there will be fruitful discussion about improving the article about the logical fallacy of quote mining, I would request that the page be unprotected and that U:C work in collegiality with me to improve the page. Thanks, GregG 11:21, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

There is nothing wrong about quoting the other side and using those quotes to disprove and discredit their position. Some evolutionists pretend there is something wrong with this, yet politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does this frequently.--Andy Schlafly 13:00, 9 June 2013 (EDT) I'm glad you are offering your input, and I should probably explain my changes fully on the talk page. Science, law, theology, politics, mathematics, and philosophy are all different systems for answering questions about our world. Each system has its own rules, so what may be a valid argument in law (citing to binding precedent or quoting an authority) is not necessarily valid in science or math. Likewise, logical deduction from axioms is the main way mathematical results are proven, but it has less utility in the other systems of answering questions. In any event, I think there should be a full discussion on the talk page, and, revisiting this issue, I think that what would probably be best (and what I will therefore request) is for the page protection to automatically expire, say, a week or two from now, and hopefully, the discussion that takes place during this next week will improve the article. Thanks, GregG 13:10, 9 June 2013 (EDT) EDIT You wrote "politicians, attorneys, and any debater properly does [sic] this frequently." I trust you are familiar with Rule 3.3 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. GregG 13:23, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

Try this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['user' ]['createpage'] = false; $wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['createpage'] = true; $wgAutoConfirmAge = 600 ; # Ten Minutes

I disagree with this proposal. I think one of the things that makes wikis so successful is that people can jump in by creating an account and instantly contribute by improving pages. To be honest, I think that there are enough blockers to handle the spam efficiently, but if there needs to be a solution, I would recommend QuestyCaptcha. GregG 17:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

It keeps on coming up everytime I add a link to references, is there any way that you can turn it off for my user? I clearly am not a bot or spammer so if you can it would be much appreciated. JAnderson 20:51, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for asking. I've added SkipCatcha privileges to your account.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 10 June 2013 (EDT)

I'm happy to announce that the Book of Malachi is now fully translated. I would like you to take a look at it and if needed help improve it. Note: not all of the book's translation was done by me, but in the parts that I did translate I changed "LORD of hosts" into "LORD of armies". The Hebrew word "tsvaot" (?????) that is sometimes translated into "hosts" actually means "armies". I think that this translation is more accurate, plus it sends a strong anti-pacifist message.

I also see that I can't add Malachi to the list of fully translated books in Template:ConservativeBible. Could you please do that for me? - Markman 06:16, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Fabulous! I like your correction of the pacifist bias. I've updated the template. Well done!--Andy Schlafly 11:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks you for your kind words! - Markman 11:41, 15 June 2013 (EDT) I look forward to more of your translations.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Schlafly, could you please answer to my post on Talk:Roman Catholic Church about the RCC and evolution? Thanks, cheers. --Swordsman 08:10, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Replied.--Andy Schlafly 11:48, 15 June 2013 (EDT)

Hi can you please uploud these pictures: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchy-symbol.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancapflag.svg Thanks --JoeyJ 13:49, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

Done as requested.--Andy Schlafly 14:28, 16 June 2013 (EDT) Thank you but I cant put them into the articles Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism Can you help me, please? --JoeyJ 13:58, 18 June 2013 (EDT) I resized them from 500px to 200px and now you can use them in a format smaller than 500px. See: Anarchism and http://conservapedia.com/File:200px-Ancapflag.svg.png Conservative 14:35, 18 June 2013 (EDT) Thanks Conservative. Please uploud yet this here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anarchist_flag.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_punk.svg --JoeyJ 08:47, 21 June 2013 (EDT) and this one also --JoeyJ 09:30, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly, Having visited the Eagle Forum website I noticed you run courses on US history which interests me, but have noticed the registration is restricted to those living in the USA. Is it possible to enrole from elsewhere?--Tomqua 16:27, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Consider using the U.S. History course I posted here: Conservapedia:Index.--Andy Schlafly 16:41, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

Thank you--Tomqua 16:42, 18 June 2013 (EDT)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57590166/james-gandolfini-dead-at-51/

It's the same old story over and over: a Hollywood liberal (he helped raise money for Kerry) engages in a self destructive lifestyle (compulsive eating in this case) leading to his own demise. So tragic and yet so preventable. - Markman 15:08, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

The archives from "Previous Breaking News" are very unvalid. Where are the archives from 2012/2013?--JoeyJ 12:01, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

Here: [3].--Andy Schlafly 12:13, 24 June 2013 (EDT)

We've under a vandalism spree recently. Users involved: SwissE, Namkram, JackieS. I think we should consider a range block in case their IP addressees are dynamic.

I also blocked some users who registered in close proximity to the vandal spree: Mar92vg8br, Numisexpert37, Car9d94nha, NigelM, DennyH. I recommend using checkuser to see if they share IP addressees with the vandals. If not, than those with a proper username should be unblocked while those with an improper username should remain blocked but with their IP unblocked and account creation enabled. - Markman 09:09, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. I'll look into this.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

You don't have any problems with his blocks, do you? brenden 14:11, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant! - Markman 14:16, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Richard I

(Difference between revisions)After Richard’s withdraw, Saladin seized the opportunity and reinvaded Jaffa which served as headquarter for Crusaders at Jerusalem campaign. Facing massive enemies, although fought bravely but Christians were quickly outnumbered, the survivors retreated into the citadel. News reached to Richard, he immediately came to rescue. He divided his army into two. The main army under Templars marched into Jaffa though land which he expected they would be blocked on their way and it happened indeed. Meanwhile he led a small army approach Jaffa by sea. At first , they thought there are no survivors , but when he saw a Christian flag weaving from the citadel in the city, Richard leaped into the sea and waded through the waves to reach the wall . The king led 54 knights, a few hundred infantrymen, and about 2,000 crossbowmen charge into the city. Christian prisoners in the city seized their arms and resumed fight. Being stunned by Richard’s assaulting, Muslims were quickly collapsed and fled.   After Richard’s withdraw, Saladin seized the opportunity and reinvaded Jaffa which served as headquarter for Crusaders at Jerusalem campaign. Facing massive enemies, although fought bravely but Christians were quickly outnumbered, the survivors retreated into the citadel. News reached to Richard, he immediately came to rescue. He divided his army into two. The main army under Templars marched into Jaffa though land which he expected they would be blocked on their way and it happened indeed. Meanwhile he led a small army approach Jaffa by sea. At first , they thought there are no survivors , but when he saw a Christian flag weaving from the citadel in the city, Richard leaped into the sea and waded through the waves to reach the wall . The king led 54 knights, a few hundred infantrymen, and about 2,000 crossbowmen charge into the city. Christian prisoners in the city seized their arms and resumed fight. Being stunned by Richard’s assaulting, Muslims were quickly collapsed and fled.   But this was just beginning, after being driven out of the city, Saladin again gathered a massive army plan to retake the city. With a much smaller army with him, Richard formed a defense line with spear men in the front and crossbowmen behind. Muslims repeated charge but were beaten back every times. After hold the line for hours, Richard led a charge with 50 knights which only 10 to 15 mounted. The king’s horse was killed during the battle and he eventually fought on foot. By the evening, it is clear the city was defended. Left 700 bodies and 1500 dead horses, Saladin abandoned his plan. Although with only a few men, Christians only miraculously lost 2 in the battle.  But this was just beginning, after being driven out of the city, Saladin again gathered a massive army and plan to retake the city. With a much smaller army with him, Richard formed a defense line with spear men in the front and crossbowmen behind. Muslims repeated charge but were beaten back every time. After hold the line for hours, Richard led a charge with 50 knights which only 10 to 15 mounted. The king’s horse was killed during the battle and he eventually fought on foot. By the evening, it is clear the city was defended. Left 700 bodies and 1500 dead horses, Saladin abandoned his plan. Although with only a few men, Christians only miraculously lost 2 in the battle.  After heard new Frankish crusaders are on their way to Holy Land and there is nothing more he can do, Saladin had no choose but accepted a peace talk with Richard. Pilgrims again could go to Jerusalem to worship.After heard new Frankish crusaders are on their way to Holy Land and there is nothing more he can do, Saladin had no choose but accepted a peace talk with Richard. Pilgrims again could go to Jerusalem to worship.

King Richard I of England lived September 8, 1157 – April 6, 1199. He was King of England from 1189 to 1199. He is an important figure in many stories about the crusades such as Sir Walter Scott's "The Talisman" and participated in the Third Crusade where his forces performed admirably against Saladin.

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

He was from the Royal House of Plantagenet, although this name was not adopted until later. At the time, he, his father (King Henry II) and brother (King John), were collectively known as the House of Anjou (or the Angevins) as they descended from Count Geoffrey of Anjou, whose nickname was Plantagenet (from the sprig of 'planta genesta', a type of broom, that was worn as the family emblem.) Geoffrey married the Empress Matilda (aka Maud), daughter of the English King Henry I, who fought her cousin King Stephen for the English throne. The treaty which ended this struggle saw her cede the throne to Stephen in return for her son (King Henry II) being made his heir.

King Richard was known as Coeur de Lion (the Lionheart). At this time, the English court was almost entirely French in character and language, being directly descended from King William the Duke of Normandy and including the lands of Anjou and Aquitaine in modern day France. Indeed, the largest land holder in France, was King Richard. He spoke no English - his native tongue was the regional dialect French of Poitou. His body was buried in Poitou, and his heart in Rouen Cathedral in his ancestral Normandy.

He was the second oldest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine . He was not expected to ascend the throne, his elder brother Henry would become King of England. But he was always his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine’s favor. From an early age, he had already being known for his extraordinary military ability and great courage on the battlefield. He also had a great reputation of chivalry and energy in protecting pilgrims whom passing though his own territory.

According to Henry II ‘s plan , his eldest son Henry would become King of England and have control of Anjou, Maine, and Normandy, while Richard would inherit Aquitaine from his mother and become Count of Poitiers, and his younger brother Geoffrey would get Brittany through marriage alliance with Constance, the heiress to the region. Richard was betrothed to Alys, fourth daughter of Louis VII of France.

In 1171 Henry II gave him the duchy of Aquitaine at the request of his mother Eleanor. Together they laid the foundation stone of St Augustine's Monastery in Limoges.

In 1173, Henry the young King made a rebellion against Henry II, it is believe Eleanor manipulated her sons. He went to Louis VII for support, Richard and Geoffrey made an alliance with their brother. The 5 –year- old John remained with Henry at that time. The war lasts for a year. Louis made a peace treaty with Henry II alone after he raised the siege of Rouen in France, Richard was specifically excluded in the treaty. Being abandoned by Louis, Richard had to face the whole army of his father. He went to Henry’s court then weeping, and asked for forgiveness. Henry gave him the kiss of peace. His brothers joined him and reconciliated with their father later.

Henry the young King became increasingly jealous on him and demanded him pay homage but Richard refused. In 1183, Henry the young King and Geoffrey invaded Aquitaine, Bertrand de Born, Count of Hautefort, who was Richard's rival in minstrelsy also joined them. But Richard successfully hold them back. In June 11, 1183, the young King died.

King Henry demanded Richard give up Aquitaine to his youngest son John , Richard refused. Henry soon gave John permission to invade Aquitaine. In 1188, the war broke up; Richard paid homage to Philip Augustus, King of France in addition with Normandy and Anjou in exchange of an alliance. They defeated Henry’s army at Ballans. Henry died in 6 July, 1189. According to report, Richard was unhorsed by William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke during the war which give William the reputation of the only man ever to unhorse Richard, he then insulted the future King with words that “no one could ever bear”, but later, Richard welcomed and included him in the council of regency in his absence for Crusade as his chivalrous character. Richard was crowned as King of England at Westminster on Sept 3.

Towards the end of 1187, when the news of fall of the Jerusalem reached him, Richard took the Cross. Philip Augustus and Henry II had subsequently followed his example. After the coronation, Richard swore an oath to renounce his past sin in order to show his worthy to take the Cross. He sold sheriffdoms, justiceships, church lands, and set all kinds of positions for biding and spent most of his father’s treasure in raising and equipping crusaders. He even made bidding for the position of chancellor, William Longchamp, his own chancellor kept his position with £3,000. It is reported he said "I would have sold London if I could find a buyer." He raised around 8000 men and 100 ships.

In 1189, Richard crossed Calais and met Philip Augustus whom also started Crusade. He reached Marseilles and arrived in Messina then waited for the spring. Because his betrothed Alys , who is Philip’s sister had affair with his father, Richard refused to marry her, as a Christian, such a marriage is intolerable. Richard then betrothed to Berengaria of Navarre. This is the start of the lifelong hostile between him and Philip.

In June 10, 1190, their main partner in the crusade, Holy Roman emperor Frederick I, famous known as Barbarossa drowned when he across the Saleph River which is now part of Turkey .Germans then left the Crusade. Since Fredrick has the largest army among them, almost 10 times larger than the English and French combined, this significantly weakened the third Crusade. In1191, the ships carrying Richard’s fiancée Berengaria and his sister Joan which are on their way to catch up with him was anchored around coast of Cyprus. They were threatened and were put into prison by the island's despot Isaac Komnenos. Richard came to their rescue, he ordered Isaac release the prisoner, but he refused. Richard then captured the island, and overthrew Komnenos. He married Berengaria in the Chapel of St George on Cyprus in May 12. 1191.

Richard arrived at Acre at June 8, 1191, but he was seriously sick. Even when he was being carried on a stretcher, he took out guards on the wall with his crossbow. He liberated Acre in July 12,1191. However, Philip Augustus left the Crusade at that point. The French’s left furthermore weaken the Crusade, the rest of the armies are not large enough to liberate Jerusalem. Although in the hard situation, Richard then defeated Saladin at Arsuf on 7 September 1191, and then liberated Jaffa. These victories secured the way access to Jerusalem. In the first time, Christians in the Holy Land were relieved from the threat of Saladin. The armies then advanced into the Holy City, but the size of the armies made Richard decide to retreated back to the coast. He made another attempt marching into Jerusalem but again, he decided to retreat. In the spring of 1192, news reached to Richard that his brother John started a revolt against him back in England with the support of Philip Augustus whom had already came back to France. Without too many options, Richard had to go home. But He has to try everything he can to guarantee Christian’s security in Holy Land after his left.

After Richard’s withdraw, Saladin seized the opportunity and reinvaded Jaffa which served as headquarter for Crusaders at Jerusalem campaign. Facing massive enemies, although fought bravely but Christians were quickly outnumbered, the survivors retreated into the citadel. News reached to Richard, he immediately came to rescue. He divided his army into two. The main army under Templars marched into Jaffa though land which he expected they would be blocked on their way and it happened indeed. Meanwhile he led a small army approach Jaffa by sea. At first , they thought there are no survivors , but when he saw a Christian flag weaving from the citadel in the city, Richard leaped into the sea and waded through the waves to reach the wall . The king led 54 knights, a few hundred infantrymen, and about 2,000 crossbowmen charge into the city. Christian prisoners in the city seized their arms and resumed fight. Being stunned by Richard’s assaulting, Muslims were quickly collapsed and fled.

But this was just beginning, after being driven out of the city, Saladin again gathered a massive army and plan to retake the city. With a much smaller army with him, Richard formed a defense line with spear men in the front and crossbowmen behind. Muslims repeated charge but were beaten back every time. After hold the line for hours, Richard led a charge with 50 knights which only 10 to 15 mounted. The king’s horse was killed during the battle and he eventually fought on foot. By the evening, it is clear the city was defended. Left 700 bodies and 1500 dead horses, Saladin abandoned his plan. Although with only a few men, Christians only miraculously lost 2 in the battle.

After heard new Frankish crusaders are on their way to Holy Land and there is nothing more he can do, Saladin had no choose but accepted a peace talk with Richard. Pilgrims again could go to Jerusalem to worship.

Richard’s ship wrecked on his way back and he was force to across the dangerous Continent. He was captured by Leopold of Austria; the latter sold him to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI who is jealousy of what Richard had done. Henry demanded 150000 marks as ransom which being equivalent to around £2 billion in 2011. He also demanded Richard surround his Kingdom to him. The Pope then excommunicated Henry. Eleanor the King’s Mother eventually raised the money. Richard reached home in 1194. Although being repeatedly threaten by John, Richard eventually pardoned him.

During Richard’s absence, Philip Augustus took the Normandy. After his return, Richard led his army back. In March 25, 1199, near the Castle perimeter in Chalus-Chabrol, someone on the castle wall deliberately aimed the King with bow, applauded the first shot, he was hit in the left shoulder near the neck by the next. The arrow was positioned. The archer eventually was captured. As his last chivalric action, he forgave him, ordered gave him 100 shillings and set him free. However his wish was not practice by his company after his death.. He also declared forgave Philip. After confessed his sin, Richard died in the arms of his mother in April 6. As his wish , he was buried at feet of his father at Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou. His heart was buried at Rouen in Normandy.

It is sometimes recorded that King Richard was homosexual, but there is little direct evidence. He was acknowledged fathering an illegitimate son from before his marriage.He alleged have “love feeling” when he first met his future wife Berengaria, but it later went cold. It was possible a typical political marriage for him. But Berengaria was deeply in love with him. The British monarchy website makes no mention of his homosexuality http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page60.asp His sexuality may be argued, but he is known as a complex character, who on one hand enjoyed the rough male companionship of the military, and spent most of his reign under arms; whilst at the same time being accomplished in the arts of the troubadours with their focus on courtly love.

Reputation He is the only Christian leader at that time feared by Muslims. There is no denying Richard's skills as a tactician, and battle-field commander, and as a leader of men.Because of Scott, and the Robin Hood tales, and a belief that the warrior is more interesting than the diplomat, we have to peel back the various layers of romance and legend to reach the real Richard.

Sellars and Yeatman in their classic history of England; "1066 and All That" described him as always setting off for somewhere and called him "Richard Gare de Lyon" (Lyon railway station)

View the original article here

Major conservative organizations

(Difference between revisions)

Below is a listing of large conservative organizations:

United States:

View the original article here

User:MarshallN

View the original article here

User:Seotipshoyt10

View the original article here

User talk:Brenden

(Difference between revisions)::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT)::You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT):::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT):::I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT)::::Yes.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden/Archive

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

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

....you'll love this guy's stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, MattyD 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! EJamesW 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.Brenden 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT) DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! EJamesW 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. EJamesW 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

[Comments retracted by poster]Thank you, EJamesW brenden 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

What does mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

EJamesW 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--Jpatt 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT) My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.brenden 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks, Mr. Schlaflybrenden 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. Wschact 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, Taj 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. Dvergne 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? Dvergne 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST) It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. brenden 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --DonnyC 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. brenden 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

Try now - your account has been promoted.--Andy Schlafly 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)

Thanks! brenden 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - Markman 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Thanks Brenden. I needed that! AlanE 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)

NP brenden 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. DouglasA 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)

KK got it. brenden 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

Thanks. JohanZ 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

No problembrenden 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. CameronD 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --DonnyC 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)

Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. brenden 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and Aschlafly choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. Fnarrow 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)

On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of FWilliamM a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? Fnarrow 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. brenden 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT) I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. Fnarrow 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. Karajou 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, "you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise." is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. brenden 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT) This edit [1] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. Karajou 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? AlanE 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. AlanE 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

@User:Karajou

I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. brenden 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him.

I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have  made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review. Thank you, Fnarrow

If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. JSandler 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. Conservative 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. brenden 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT) I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. Conservative 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT) That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. brenden 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. Conservative 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT) Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?brenden 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for personal remarks hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --Ed Poor Talk 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. brenden 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--Patmac 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - Markman 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. brenden 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - Markman 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. brenden 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - Markman 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. brenden 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP??" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - Markman 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording accordingly. - Markman 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. brenden 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

There's a surprise for you there. - Markman 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? brenden 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT) Your talk page. - Markman 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT) Aww thanks :), but I declined it. brenden 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. AngusT 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

You could do that. I encourage you to do so, as a matter of fact. brenden 20:42, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

He needs to stop making false accusations against me. - Markman 22:05, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

You don't need to say "idiot" in the block comment, especially against a valuable and trusted contributor here. brenden 22:29, 23 June 2013 (EDT) I call them I like I seem them. - Markman 22:48, 23 June 2013 (EDT) What?brenden 22:55, 23 June 2013 (EDT) LOL should have been "I call them like I see them". - Markman 22:59, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

That's really enough of you and Markman going at it; you shouldn't be reverting his comment on Andy's talk page - he is a user with advanced privileges.--IDuan 14:29, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

"Checkers, stop barking at Mr. Schlafly this instant!" is not appropriate for anyone to say. Besides, I have the same rank as Markman. brenden 14:31, 25 June 2013 (EDT) You have the same rank has nothing to do with the fact that you don't treat a user with advanced privileges as you would a new user; nor do you get in blocking wars with a user who has blocking rights. Stop blocking him.--IDuan 14:33, 25 June 2013 (EDT) I won't block him or revert him. However, then wouldn't this logic then extend to me, and shouldn't Markman stop blocking me? brenden 14:34, 25 June 2013 (EDT) Yes.--IDuan 14:36, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here