Conservapedia:Abuse/archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise.

Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Current Alerts

  1. Sanity (talk contribs count) - hostile user page, signs as the indefinitely blocked i_c_e_w_e_d_g_e (talk contribs count)
  2. Dandriscoll (talk contribs count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • Blocked by MountainDew
  3. i_c_e_w_e_d_g_eisi (talk contribs count) - many tiny edits
    • Blocked by Elamdri
  4. Weeeeee (talk contribs count) - vandalism, most notably this, signed as i_c_e_w_e_d_g_e
    • Blocked by--CPAdmin1 19:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Dealt with

  1. Dandriscoll (talk contribs count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • 19:01, 31 March 2007 MountainDew (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Dandriscoll (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (a parodist)


Old Alerts

Could people at least reply on the talk page for the breast exam page for WHY they keep deleting the non offensive image? If that's offensive, then this is going to end up being an amazingly tiny encyclopedia. It doesn't show anything rude, as I said on the talk page, yet it's gone once again. --ALFa 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This is going to be a very tiny encyclopedia. That's sort of the point, unfortunately. --Scrap 22:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I deleted that stuff about breast exams. Go look in your Encyclopedia Britannica and see if you find voyeurism like that. You won't, and it shouldn't be here either.--Aschlafly 18:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Due respect, Andy, but you will... you will find anatomical pictures of breasts, etc. But then again, in an EB, you'll also not find outright censorship of material on evolution.-AmesG 20:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The desire by so many (present company excluded) to teach about sex has really been an eye-opener for me. There appear to be millions of people wanting to teach about sex! Virtually none of them become doctors, or even go into health professions. Virtually none want to become real teachers. But it's amazing how many want to be teachers of sex-related topics!--Aschlafly 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Woot! Sign me up!--Raytrotter 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Can't say I understood that. Sorry. But, first, breast exams are not sex. They're cancer prevention. Second, teaching about safe sex prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion.-AmesG 21:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL, "teaching about sex", "voyeurism", ahahaah. Sorry but those are just the complete wrong terms to use. First of all, a picture of a *covered* breast couldn't possibly relate to sex. I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. And how it is voyeurism I will never know, since that would theoretically be a pervert watching someone through a window without them knowing it, or something similar. This is a diagram used to help prevent Breast Cancer. They were definately fully aware of a photo being taken, are covering themselves, and aren't doing anything sexual. But whatever, if you want to be afraid of a bare stomach being shown, inflict censorship, by all means. --ALFa 23:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Can somebody delete please? The page got moved away from its proper space, but the move can't be undone since the moving user also removed the redirect (thus giving the page an actual edit history). If somebody deleted the redirecting page, the move could be reverted --Sid 3050 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Quick edit to add: I'm not sure if the user had the aim of vandalizing the page, but I figured that most admins check in here for maintenance tasks --Sid 3050 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Addressed.--Elamdri 02:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Could I ask for another favor in that line? Delete the current copy-pasted Talk page (as of now, no new content has been added to it) content and do a real page move from Usertalk:RobS to User talk:RobS? That way, the edit history stays intact, and the old page simply turns into a redirect. --Sid 3050 11:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Czolgolz seems to be faking posts by copying User:Bill M's posts and/or simply faking sigs. See [1] and [2] for an example, but it's definitely not the only one (check Czolgolz's contribs). --Sid 3050 14:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Thanks, Ed! --Sid 3050 14:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Reporting obscenity

User "Hal jordan" posted obscenity here. In addition to being blocked, his full IP address and other identifying information have been reported to Road Runner with the request that it take immediate action against him for posting obscenity to a website used by minors under the age of 16.--Aschlafly 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A Soft Layer Technologies system in Dallas was the source of a different obscenity by a user. The user has been blocked and the owner of the server has been notified at .--Aschlafly 20:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Removing users

I've warned him. Please alert me if he does it again.--Elamdri 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
There's no evidence the dozen or so people he calls Evolutionists are Evolutionists; to me it looks like trolling. RobS 00:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry - I meant to put Michael Moore as an Evolutionist, but I was too fast on the copy and paste. I was trying to add an evolutionist tag as appropriate, and I don't know a better way than to just browse random articles - so they are random, sort-of. Smile 00:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I'm willing to give you some leeway with this as you aren't doing the usual vandalism stuff. But back up those evolutionist tags ok? And cut out the mammal stuff.--Elamdri 00:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Skin Flute may have earned you a ban. [6] And these could be speedied. [7][8] RobS 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I gave him one week; there's a lot of nonsense there, but some stuff is bordereline. RobS 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I almost blocked him last night, but thought perhaps it best to give more of an opportunity to be constructive. His edits have not been clear vandalism, though I agree at least one seems silly. Maybe he'll get serious.--Aschlafly 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
REPLY: blocked for infinite duration, and his vandalism has been rolled back. We also have his IP address and ISP.--Aschlafly 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Sisyphus, Microscope, prank/parody article: "Microscopes are purportedly instruments that enable the user to view objects smaller than the eye is capable of visualizing... Microscopes are frequently used by scientists, such as those arguing in favor of human cloning, stem cell research, and evolution... little investigation has been done into the possibility that microscopes may cause the existence of the very microbes they purport to offer us a glimpse at. It is also possible that the scientific method may itself be at fault." Dpbsmith 19:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
REPLY: blocked for one week for his one edit, which was inappropriate. Good decision here by another SYSOP (Geo). Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Scriabin and User:Familyman, for subtle vandalism in their creation of the original articles on Johann Sebastian Bach and Bach, johann sebastian (now a redirect). They highlight a problem that concerns me: both of these articles, as created, are poisonous mixes of valid information with misinformation that is subtle enough to escape notice by people who don't know the subject, while ludicrous enough to arouse the derision of those who do. Johann Sebastian Bach said that Bach composed "a C Minor Mass." If he did, it's obscure, whereas his B Minor Mass is celebrated; Mozart wrote a famous C Minor Mass. That could be a typo. Saying Bach composed The Diabelli Variations (which are by Beethoven) can't be. The original version of Bach, johann sebastian goes over the top when it says "The title of his collection Bach's Great Organ Works is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." OK, maybe not-so-subtle vandalism. Dpbsmith 18:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Familyman has been blocked, and upon Dpbsmith's comments above I also blocked Scriabin. But upon further extensive investigation I couldn't find evidence justifying a block of Scriabin, so I have unblocked him. I have an open mind about this and welcome comments by others. I'm particularly reluctant to disagree with Dpbsmith, who has almost always been right here and has been with us since nearly the beginning. Thanks, Dpbsmith!--Aschlafly 10:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
(You're welcome!) Dpbsmith 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT) P. S. Since it wasn't at all obvious (and still isn't) that Scriabin's edit represented abuse, and since he wasn't making rapid edits, I should have asked him about this on his Talk page instead of going here. I've now done so now. Dpbsmith 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Scriabin and I have exchanged mutual apologies. Dpbsmith 08:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I am reporting user: Conservative He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--Dave3172 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Eric Mukherjee. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. Dpbsmith 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)--AustinM 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. Dpbsmith 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

user: JC is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything. (AustinM)

What is going on?
Conservative gets granted exclusive rights to put the creationist view on the Theory of evolution article. AustinM banns JC for putting the creationist view on other articles, claiming it is vandalism. AustinM then goes and vandalizes the Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Guantanamo Bay detention camp articles. Are Conservatives fighting amongst each other in order to decide whose version of reality gets to be the definitive one? Can't wait for the SYSOPs banning SYSOPs melee.
This site is an endless source of surreal entertainment. I can't really see anyone taking it seriously as an encyclopedia.
I assume I'll get banned for pointing that out.
WhatIsGoingOn 15:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Handy jargon: on Wikipedia, this is known as a "wheel war." Dpbsmith 19:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Interesting, I always idly wondered about that term means (and always forgot to look it up), so thanks for the info! --Sid 3050 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Niandra did infact ban WhatIsGoingOn for his/her one and only contribution - on a talk page. I take it freedom of speech (obscenity aside) isn't part of the Conservapedia philosophy, or is stating uncomfortable truths considered vandalism here?
Will I now get banned too?
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing? Thank you,

PD Popejoy

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.
They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with Truth By Headcount, now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --Scrap 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure where this stands now, and I apologize for being late on this discussion. But I wanted to say this: let's avoid using the word "cult" to describe any group. It seems overly pejorative and not encyclopedic. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Mr. Schlafly is correct. Too many words are bandied about all over the Net. Jim Jones, of Jonestown--Peoples Temple infamy, he ran a "Cult". So think of him, and his tragedy, before applying that word. Last I checked, neither the JW's or LDS people were telling their people to drink Kool-aid laced with poison, so they could cross over and meet Jesus.

Blocked user:JesusSaves for three days. Reason for it was in repeated inclusion of a nonsensical line in the article Genesis, and his decision to begin and escalate an argument about it. When given a last warning to stop, he continued. It's documented on the Genesis talk page. Karajou 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to tell you, this is a mirror image of when Conservative blocked AmesG. Karajou, you were involved in a personal dispute with the user and should probably get a fellow sysop to sign off on that.
From Talk:Genesis "If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)"
The fight was with you... get a neutral sysop to go with you... you probably had a case but booting him yourself removes your moral authority. Myk 20:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I reviewed this debate betwen Karajou and JesusSaves at length. While blocking is always a last resort, it is appropriate when someone is repeatedly interfering with productive work. Karajou could have locked the page, but that would have prevented others from contributing to this work-in-progress.
JesusSaves should have deferred to the person doing the most work on the entry (Karajou). It's not right for a bystander to come along and repeatedly insist on placing a dot somewhere in the Mona Lisa as Da Vinci paints it. Karajou warned JesusSaves repeatedly, and even then blocked him for only 3 days.
Put another way, we don't allow a heckler's veto here. Some professional courtesy and deference is appropriate, and Karajou need not divert his efforts to track down other SYSOPs in this situation. I hope JesusSaves will return and not insist on his same edit yet again.--Aschlafly 21:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Personaly, I did not like the thought of having him, or anyone else for that matter, removed from the site. I think a better preference for myself at least would be to contact another sysop or Aschlafly for arbitration should another incident happen. Karajou 13:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I responded on your talk page. MountainDew 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Long-term tasks

I made a "short" list of redirects that still exist after the "on wheels" move vandalism. I believe they should be cleaned up... But instead of actually editing fifty redirect pages to include them in the "Speedy Delete" category, I just compiled a list at User:Sid 3050/Deletion List. I also included the Delete links AND lined them up in a nifty column so you can just click away if you like. (Yes, I've been having far too much fun with regular expression replacements there. I'm weird like that.) =P --Sid 3050 23:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Did someone beat me to it? I tried and there was nothing to delete for everything I clicked. Thanks for your superb list!!!--Aschlafly 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, whatever. MountainDew reacted to the call within minutes, so you should praise him. --Sid 3050 21:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hitler article

The Hitler article is locked to prevent vandalism, but the most recent changes by RobS and Geo.plrd are nothing short of vandalism. --Order 19 March, 14:00 (AEST

I fail to see how I vandalized this page by adding information. I have unprotected it to allow work. Geo. 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It looked like subtle vandalism, by inserting many red herrings and factual erros. Thanks for unprotecting it, although I am not sure where to begin first. The article bebfore the improvment drive was maybe short, and a bit simplistic, but at least fairly correct.--Order 19 March 20:00 (AEST)
  • I posted over there at the Hitler talk page. Let's hope cooler heads will manage the rather simple task of informing users what Hitler was, and what it was he ordered, without getting bogged down in nitpicks and petty arguments. When examining true Evil, and trying to explain it, we simply don't have time for that kind of crap. --TK 06:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can somebody stop RobS from editing the Hitler article. Every entry he adds contains at least two factual errors, and he presents legends on Hitler as facts. He doesn't do any research before an edit, and probabaly just relies on his recollections from either history class or his grandmother. Locking this page to prevent vandalism doesn't help, if there is a not-so-subtle vandal among the sysops. --Order 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)

And TK is posted copyrighted material. As a sysop. --Order 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
There is no subtle vandalism going on, it is a good faith effort to improve this article. Geo. 02:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you distinguish? If they weren't sysops, they would or should have gotten a warning. --Order 20 March, 17:55 (AEST)
Intent Geo. 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
They have been told a few times, especially RobS that the edits conatin many factual errors. That didn't keep him from introducing more. I assume he did it with intend, since I assume that he is able to google for actual information, rather relying on myths, legends, or made up stuff. If he is not able do that, I wouldn't blame him of course. --Order 20 March, 14:00 (AEST).
  • You distingush by reading the history. :p The attribution was in one of my drafts, and in all the moving and re-arranging, wasn't there when I finished in the middle of the night. Is this place always such a tempest in a teapot? I posted material that is in the public domain, not copyrighted, and attributed. If you see something like what I did, and know the attribution, it is your duty and right to add it in. If you don't know it, rather than running like a baby to abuse, you should contact the person who edited it. My email is listed here, my IM is listed. Does that not sound fair? The page was a freakin' mess. The page is supposed to be about Hitler...they were all over the map. The focus is now back where it should have been all along. I think far too many of you isolate yourselves, rather than communicating, and the last few posts are a good example.
  • I assumed that you had just dumped some material for further improvement. That why I said that I was looking forward to the final version. The material that you posted was at least mostly factual. The strom in the teapot, is because the article as it was, was nothing more than a Miffy version of History. "Hitler planned a putsch in a beer hall. The army storms the room. Hitler trips and falls. Look, Hitler is unharmed. Hitler escapes." That has nothing to do with a serious entry on this guy. Thats why I was glad that you at least infused some factual material, even if it's from another site. Order 20 March 21:10 (AEST)
  • Then the purpose of posting here, before you ascertained any of the facts, was what, exactly? I am not looking to beat this horse, but I think my comments were valid, and my solution, quoting one of the foremost experts on the "Final Solution" and Adolf Hitler was better than what was going on. Sometimes one can and should copy. Only this wasn't even that, just my dumb mistake to leave the attribution off the final compilation, even though the quotes and link are on my Word copy of it. The point is, it explains who and what Hitler was. As for the rest of the page, if you all could stop sniping at one another, and hammer it all out on the talk page, it would be even better. I almost removed all the rest of the crap there, and perhaps I should have, and only transfered over what was posted and cited on the talk page. Do you think that would have been a better solution? I just get a bit riled when people run around shouting "dishonest" without ever looking at the facts present, or at least having the decency to ask. Now, why don't you get in touch, and together perhaps, since you have the interest in the topic, we can do what we can to make the page even more informative? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 06:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I say that I was actually pleased that you put the Wiesel speech into the article. I'm happy to say it again. I was glad about your material, and I was looking forward for it to be intergrated with the rest, or even replace the rest, where possible. Order 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

Please feel free to make a new header on the talk page, and give me your thoughts. :-) --~ Terry Talk2Me! 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

John Howard article

This article appears to have a history of silly edits. The latest is by the aptly named "Not a Conservative". Here it is. I suggest he be blocked. --Horace 01:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't Australia have a house of Commons? Geo. 01:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the Federal Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The various State Parliaments have their own upper and lower houses excepting Queensland which did away with its upper house at some point. --Horace 01:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
okay. Geo. 01:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Abuse of sysop priviledge

There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. RobS first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on Liberals. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But RobS now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only RobS can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. Order 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

  • You refered to a citation [9] to Lucy Dawidowicz, [one of the most respected Holocaust historians of the past 50s years, as a "rant". [10] You did this presumably because you could not respond to her words, so you came here and posted garbage about me. RobS 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I didn't call her words a rant, but the fact that you included her words to suggest that the gay victims do not actually matter. Not the point she wanted to make was the issue, but the point you wanted to make. User:Order 30 March, 10:15 AEST
  • So, you attacked the messenger of bad news on two pages. And you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to refute Dawidowicz with. Then, given the sensitive nature of this subject, you impugned me rather than address Dawidowicz. How Wikipedia-esque. RobS 20:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I unlocked Hitler. I locked it. What is the problem with it now, Order? Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, his problems weren't just with Hitler but with Liberals, too. That came out wrong. Myk 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that User:RobS probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article show that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example
    • Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
    • Next edit on 22 March by User:RobS.
    • First edit says protection of all of God's creation even if advocated by atheists. Bold added by User:RobS. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessarily offensive.
    • Same edit he adds opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.
    • Calling liberal parties in Europe so-called moderate and center-right. The is nothing so-called about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. User:RobS just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.
  • You have a diff for this claim? RobS 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
    • In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
    • In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.
    • Next few edits he fixes typos.
    • Then, after his claim that liberals reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
      • First to show that there exists a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a liberal position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might added the quoye for the following reason:
      • He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
    • When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, which User:RobS just reverts, usually without much discussion. In this way he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. User:Order 23 March 16:20 (AEST)
  • I would submit that, even though I have had occasional differences with Rob, as all of you have been witness to, I find his writing and contributions, as does Andrew Schlafly?, to be superlative. He made many valuable contributions to the Ronald Reagan page, as well as the Hitler page. He has had two or three recent articles (that he made) made featured pages here, by Andrew. Try to remember that this is the Conservapedia. As it should be, things will be represented from that point of view. Many parties in the EC are called "moderate" and, as viewed from here, by Conservatives, they are anything but.
As to Liberals and Human Rights, President Carter for example, I see his concern for such rights certainly blossomed since he left the White House, which is good, as his record there, aside from babble, was pretty dismal on real actions. One would note that real dollar aide to Africa, Sudan in particular, and AIDS Relief, has been increased some 200% under current President Bush, as opposed to President Clinton. You've got the wrong person here to repeat crap you get from liberal websites and blogs here. Any of you can IM me and have a dialog where I can point you to factual information, pro and con, on almost any recent administration. I can safely say, Jimmy Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like, and his support of them, if not such a tragedy, would be laughable. One notes that recently some of his closest associates have publicly and reluctantly, questioned his judgement, with the anti-Semitic statements he has made the last year or so. I just chalk it up to age.
Finally, let me say something about communication. IMO, most of the people here, including Andrew, are pretty poor at it. One cannot write major articles, contribute, and hammer out compromises, merely posting back and forth in the discussion pages. More of you should be using the IM's from whatever service, to ask questions and receive answers speedily, and to clear up budding misunderstandings. Instead, doing as most of you seem to want, we are saddled with a bunch of crying to "Uncle Andy" about all manner of bull that has nothing to do with this wiki. And please spare the crap about privacy. On any of the IM services, one can create a user ID in seconds, completely shielding this valued "privacy". It seems too many are so hell-bent on "protecting" their ideology, compromise and cooperation are completely impossible. It makes me wonder if all of you were like the class snitch back in grade school. Everyone is pretty quick to post crying to Andy, writing up "abuse" here, labeling whatever work someone does that you disagree with as "vandalism". Yet, when I check, I don't see posts on whoever is being complained about's talk page. one can be man enough to do that, instead everyone runs to "tell teacher". Such actions, IMO, are cowardly, and not at all logical, but maybe most of you guys were used to getting beat up in elementary school. Yeah, when I get ticked off, I am a bit extra blunt, sorry if some of you are "fragile". Please don't sue me for emotional distress. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Dude, you really need to breathe a little, maybe count to ten before typing. Who exactly are you addressing with that? Myk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
First, I should add that I looked at RobS contribution when he was mangling the Hitler article, and I was surprised that he did indeed write some decent and good articles. The more I was puzzled, why he did so poor on the Hitler article. There he mostly added factual errors. In the article about Liberals he did not add too many factual errors, but turned a fairly factual article written with a conservative perspective, into an opinion piece. And added a few factual errors. I mean, if the liberal party of Austria looks left-wing to you (this is party where Haider was chairman), I have to assume that you are even more right wing than Haider. Many conservatives in the US aren't.

But the points, even if you agree with what RobS says, its is still an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. And I can see someone who is not exposed to the world outside of the US can make a mistake, in assessing European liberal parties, he should then at least look at the talk page, do a bit of research, and not start the entire discussion all over again. This is not about content, it's about style. And RobS style is that he abuses his sysop privileges.User:Order 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

  • The culture here, dude. Most of the above should have been on the talk page at Liberal, I guess, or at RobS's talk page. Everything under the sun, to some, seems to be "abuse". It is rapidly becoming the most over-used word in the world. Whatever happened to actually chatting with one another, directly? I guess most of you won't get it. :S --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There has been a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page of "Liberals". The frustrating bit is that RobS willingly does not seem to care and do he want to do anyway. Look at the history of Liberals, and also at the history of the Hitler article. User:Order 23 March 19:10 (AEST)
  • I will, and I am going to ask a couple of other Sysops who haven't contributed to the pages in question, to have a look also. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Any progress on the bad Hitler article has now stalled, because User:RoBS remains uncooperative. Order 26 March. 9:00 (AEST)
Okay, I'll unprotect it. Let's see what happens. --Ed Poor 19:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, thanks for the consult. :S We are trying to stop this from happening by contacting the person who last locked it, before reversing their actions, just FYI. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I just found this discussion; not to open a can of worms, but I challenge User:Order to find one singular factual error at Hitler, unless you wish to proceed with the understanding I thought was made on the Talk page. RobS 17:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
One that we already discussed was that more than 2 people survived the Beer Hall Putsch. But, I was mostly irrtiated by your obstructionist approach, even more so since you edited and reverted a protected article, without discussion. But I have to admit that the biggest factual erros were introduced by Geo, like that there was a runnoff election between social democrats and nazis, or that the nazi party was newly formed. User:Order 30 March, 10:20 (AEST)

New Users to watch

"The Phelpster" (possibly obsessed with Phelps) "Hojimawang" (awfully close to our highly valued Sysop) --Aschlafly 13:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Both already blocked for impersonation/inappropriate username. Sorry, but having a username as "The Phelpster" is completely unnecessary, and isn't going to cut it here. And "Hojimawang"? I don't think so... --Hojimachongtalk 13:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Well done!!!!--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Now time for more BORF-hunting! --Hojimachongtalk 13:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Some idiot keeps registering nonsense names about Hitler being a sensitive man. Sensitivity + Man = Hitler 14:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I am officially nominating User:NeverForget as a BORF. Tmtoulouse 17:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I nominate User:Sevenstring for Unsourced liberal comments:

I'm being hounded and threatened!

Hojimachong is threatening me for "incivility and name-calling" when the reality is that I'm the one being hounded by these people. See my talk page. --Ashens 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Please explain. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That would be tough, as he's been blocked. For the record, Hoji did no such thing, ask him or Mtn. Dew about it. ColinRtalk 04:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I wouldn't want to disturb you Kings. Is there someplace one could look, to see why he was blocked? You could just IM me, its on the masthead of my page, dude. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't block him or have anything to do with his blocking. I was just trying to let you know what happened. ColinRtalk 04:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Dew was kind enough to fill me in, and un-delete his user talk page. I appreciate you trying to fill me in. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Check out the user contibution of stupid and contributed images. Miland 07:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


There's no such thing. And even if there is Alan Partridge is a fictional character. Saved matt 07:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

ACLU and Evolution

I added the ACLU and Evolution section to the ACLU article [14]. This section was sourced as well. Then the following editors proceeded to undo these edits and change them to their own unsourced liberal views.

  1. ACLU User:Reginod (Anne Coulter is not an expert on what the ACLU belives) [15]
  2. ACLU User:AmesG [16]

I think it is wrong for editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal views. This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Crocoitetalk 12:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh please. Do you think that Ann Coulter has any kind of authority to speak about what the ACLU believes? Besides They're all evil godless hellbound commie pinkos, she doesn't have any kind of authority, and if she does, it can be superseded by the views of other, more critical-minded people. --Hojimachongtalk 12:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the 'separation of church and state,' which appears in the Constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses."
If that isn't a load of sarcasm on the part of Ms. Coulter, then I don't know what it is. --Hojimachongtalk 12:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
First—I did not “change sourced conservative views and replace them with [my] own liberal views”. I removed false claims supported by an unreliable source (and replaced them with nothing).
Second—I clearly explained my edit, Anne Coulter is not an appropriate source for the agenda of the ACLU—she is a fine source for her interpretation of the agenda of the ACLU—she is even a reasonable source for the objections some (but not all) conservatives have to the ACLU—but she is not an appropriate source as used. (And therefore my edit was completely in line with this site’s requirements).
Third—your edit was in violation of this site’s rules, it made an untrue and unverifiable claim—if you can find one place where the ACLU actually claims that the Constitution has a “sodomy clause” I will gladly apologize, but until then, claims that they say the Constitution has such a clause do not belong on this site. (If you really want to criticize the ACLU there is plenty to criticize them for without making false accusations and you should feel free to do that).--Reginod 12:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Reginod, thank you for your comments. I see your points. I have added my original section to the article on Godless: The Church of Liberalism, where they are more appropriate. Crocoitetalk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
No problem Crocoite, sorry if I was a bit short with you in my reply, I just worry about getting painted with a broad “liberal” brush and having problems as a result.--Reginod 13:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The ACLU is the expert on what the ACLU believes. Im sure they have something posted on their website? --PalMDtalk 12:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Liberal page has this statement,
  • Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
although there is little or no evidence of this; it's extremely open-minded of conservative editors that this should go unchallenged. RobS 12:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
And that is properly attributed to the American Heritage Dictionary. Not stated as fact and then giving Ann Coulter as a source. Apples, meet oranges. Myk 13:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
So long as it's the AHD and not the OED! Crackertalk

Crocoite, go home. I should start a list of people trying to get me banned. Want your name added?-AmesGyo! 12:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure how thats relevant Rob...--PalMDtalk 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Please, nobody undo his ban. He has sent me 7-8 nasty emails. He just sent me an email using characters to represent a depiction of a vulgar sexual act. MountainDew 20:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools