From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Skeeter for vandalism of Christianity -- TempestHead

REPLY blocked for infinite duration.--Aschlafly 10:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Donej for his "emo" article --TempestHead

If someone could ban (name removed), for obvious reasons.

Banned Geo. 01:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Look at [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia]]. Nuff said. --Splark 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Been there, deleted that, got the hat. Geo. 02:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Somebody ban the kid, please. --Splark 02:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm no kid, I'm simply telling you what you need to change before this site can be accurate. Everything.

User:JesusWasAnExtraterrestrial for creating the article anus Parrothead 20:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Waves Hand. Over here!

User ieatmyownshit edited Rudy Giuliani as follows:

Prior to 9/11, Giuliani was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "I've had all kinds of women - hairy women, manly women, women that like a little bit of ol' Giu-Giu's juice in their armpit and then I give some of that ooh-ha ooh-ha and, like, I'll fly plain's into buildings because I'm a cock sucking butt-wiesel and I am a neo-con who likes to eat black people." Please remove him. --TK 19:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

He is perma banned Your assistance is appreciated. Geo. 22:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


I am asking that Leibniz be warned, if not temporarily banned, for repeatedly interjecting argumentative opinion into articles.--Dave3172 17:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)



Evolutionist JoshuaZ has arbitrarily erased the correct definition of Creationism two times now.

Issue #1:

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

Issue #2:

At any rate, I ask that my rendering of Creationism be reviewed by Administration to be the correct rendering and that JoshuaZ be informed of the ruling if in my favor.

Proposed Rendering

"Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity. Based on observation, Creationism asserts scientific evidence is better explained when a Creator is presupposed to have created reality."

Ray Martinez 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.
I fully agree. By that logic, User:Conservative needs to stay OUT of the Theory of Evolution article. --Scrap 20:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*waves a hand*

could one of the editors go smack whoever defaced Women in the Military? please? Thanks. Navy Nuke 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

They have been banned. Geo. 23:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


User:Mabatt blanked 5 articles. They have been restored. User has no other edits. --Scott 03:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Both (possibly the same person) have repeatedly vandalized the Rudy Giuliani page this past night. Can they be banned? Below is an example of their work:

Added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies.

Giuliani's views on sexuality are often a topic in the press. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [1] (Originally posted by TK, moved by Myk 03:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT) )


I'll be honest, I can't tell if User:Pwaynes is editing in good faith or is a subtle vandal. Here they are in full [2] and here are some of his edits:

In Democratic Party: "Historically, however, the Democrats have neglected national defense, leaving America weaker."

In women putting quotes around "Christian" churches that believe women should not have to submit to their husbands.

In Barack Obama: "Commentators have noted that he has many strikes against him in the eyes of the American people. He is black, and no black person has ever held such responsibility. Also, his first name sounds like Osama, and his middle name is Hussein, calling to mind the two most evil terrorists of modern times."

In Bill Clinton: Removing the fact that Clinton was never charged in the whitewater scandal. (He also removed the fact that GWB didn't receive a majority or a plurality of the vote in 2000 but that was irrelevant anyway).

In censorship: "and is often justified as the material in question is usual obscene, pornographic, satanic, or otherwise harmful."

In George H.W. Bush: "The Bush dynasty is generally considered to be one of the greatest american political families, along with the Adams. This is in contrast to the irresponsible and wreckless Kennedy family."

These statements are all unsourced... as the bias implicated is opposed to my bias but possibly in line with the website, I leave it up to you to decide if these are in good faith. Myk 18:03, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Since I reported this:

In New York(state): "It is a widely recognized liberal hotbed."

In Pachactui: Pachactui is a fictional Japanese Pokemon. He is a yellow, electric, mouse-like creature, and is known for shouting "Pachactui!" OK... this is definitely vandalism as he is clearly referencing Pikachu. Still, I would like to know if the others are vandalism also so I know what to report.

Anyways... all of his edits are of the same tone. Were this wikipedia, I would have no qualms about reverting 90% of his edits... but maybe that is my liberal bias. What is Conservapedia's stance on these edits? Oh, and he's removed the stub tags on every one of the articles that has had them. Myk 21:00, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Speedy deletion?

I didn't see a way to nominate pages that should really obviously be deleted, so I created Category:Speedy deletion candidates and populated it with several entries. --Interiot 15:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Nuked all the pages. Thanks. Please clear your link Category:Speedy deletion candidates to reflect this.--Aschlafly 15:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Clear the link? I don't quite understand. You may need to do a hard reload while viewing the category (Shift+Control+R in Mozilla or Opera and Ctrl + F5 in Internet Explorer) to make entries disappear after being deleted, is that what you mean? --Interiot 15:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, never mind. I see that that the page automatically updates itself to reflect the deletions. That's what I meant: remove the references to pages that have been deleted. But that's done automatically. Thanks.--Aschlafly 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Dbro (talk contribs count) has made largely unproductive/vandal edits. --Interiot 20:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Blocked for infinite duration. Great catch, Interiot! Very nice how you made it easy to see the person's contributions. That was another Road Runner customer, by the way.--Aschlafly 20:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Conservative as an Admin

Giving Conservative admin status, and protecting articles like Young Earth Creationism, has resulted in absolutely abominable, biased, unrepresentative articles. Someone should look into this; possibly an unbiased admin?--AmesG 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You would have to go higher up the ladder since an Admin would have equal authority as me. User:Aschlafly, who has authority over the Admins, has been working with me regarding a very similar article Theory of Evolution and he has had no complaints about the article. I don't think your complaints here are going to go very far. Here is what user Aschlafly has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[3] Conservative 23:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, could you give us your reasons as to why the page is still protected? Will it be opened again to edits? --Dave3172 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that User:Aschlafly should make the decision whether to unlock the page. However, should the page be unlocked and the direction the article takes be changed (pro-evolution view interjecting), I think it should be re-protected given User:Aschlafly previously mentioned endorsement of the page. Also, Aschlafly has called this encyclopedia Conservapedia and the creationist position is certainly a truly conservative view. Conservative 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'll throw in my $0.02: From what experience I have working with Conservative and reviewing his edits, he is by and large a respectful and talented editor. Of course he has strong political and religious beliefs; nobody doesn't. But he definitely pulls his weight, and causes more good than harm. I'm not saying that all of his edits are up to chalk, but they all can be welded into shape. --Hojimachongtalk 23:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Hojimachong, thank you for your kind words. Conservative 23:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
My only grievances are the two articles listed, but I believe my fears have already been addressed. Apparently the goal of this site is not a Neutral POV, but an insular pro-fundamentalist Christian regime, which Conservative is actively following. As much as I decry that goal, you are acting within it.--AmesG 01:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with AmesG. While this is a conservative encyclopedia, there are many conservatives who are evolutionists. I am personally an Old Earth creationist, but I don't believe that the other side's view should be censored, especially when many of my respected conservative friends' beliefs clash directly with mine. --Splark 02:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Note that AmeG has now been blocked by Conservative. JoshuaZ 16:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)