User talk:AugustO

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Useful links


User:PetyrB has been blocked

User:PetyrB has been blocked. He was Markman. It will be much harder for him to give a repeat performance. And if he manages to give a repeat performance, it will be very short lived. Conservative 17:14, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

He blocked everyone except me. I feel left out. PeterKa 22:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
I wasn't blocked either. GregG 22:58, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
I notice that he blocked you three times last year. Perhaps he's mellowed. PeterKa 00:09, 8 July 2014 (EDT)

Becoming an editor of good standing may become harder for someone like him, but I fear that it will be next to impossible for an honest newcomer! Without a strong motivation (for me, it is the my outrage about the disservice the CBP does to the Bible - and a bewilderment when reading about physics), you won't have the dedication to overcome the obstacles into which you are running here at Conservapedia: It took me quite an effort to find a way to appeal my first blocks!

It's at Catch-22 situation: If you make errors - as any newbie will do - you get blocked, and most probably just quit. Newcomers who don't make errors are most probably reincarnations who learned the ropes in a couple of earlier lives. --AugustO 17:41, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

Short note

If you ever get banned again, let me know at HERE and I will unblock you. Conservative 13:57, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

If he is blocked he will not be able to notify you. He will have been blocked surely? There really does need to be a better way to contact admins here in the case of parodists like markman blocking people imo. Davidspencer 14:27, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
He can create another user account solely for the purpose of contacting me at another IP address.
Ok, I will remember that in case markman comes back. He previously banned me several times as well Davidspencer 14:41, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
Fine, just be patient. I am not sure how often the mailbox will be checked, but it will definitely be checked from time to time. And you can always contact other admins too. It makes sense to mitigate any damage caused by a rogue blocker whose blocking privileges are short lived. Conservative 14:50, 11 July 2014 (EDT)
From the Conservapedia commandments page: "Administrators have discretion to act on matters not specifically mentioned here, such as vandalism and sockpuppets."[1] Common sense discretion can be exercised by Conservapedia administrators. Conservative 14:39, 11 July 2014 (EDT)

Has hope he will be more amiable should he return

User:Conservative, you blocked me arbitrarily for three days ("needlessly being quarrelsome"), and then you unblocked me, equally arbitrarily. Are you really thinking that this leads to amiability? No, it stirred my curiosity. I reread our exchange at Talk:Generalized linear model and digged a little deeper into the matters discussed:

content created by User:Conservative User:AugustO and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy Why was this page deleted? From my personal files:

AugustO, I thought you were merely whining. You said you wanted the article improved, yet were unwilling to do the work to improve it. Conservative 18:42, 23 July 2014 (EDT)
How does your petty insult ("whining") justify the deletion of this talk page? Below I showed my willingness to improve the sorry state of this article by collaborating with you! --AugustO 07:46, 24 July 2014 (EDT)
I may write articles on Correlation and dependence and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient in the future. By the way, Vox Day wrote an interesting article entitled Statistical misleadings. Conservative 13:51, 24 July 2014 (EDT)

--AugustO 16:34, 24 July 2014 (EDT)

While you still haven't answer my question about the deletion of the talk-page, I came to the conclusion that my mentioning of the Question evolution! book for middle school students triggered the deletion of the revisions and my block. You seem to be on an Orwellian campaign to erase this book from memory, a campaign which bodes ill for the trustworthiness of Conservapedia. --AugustO 18:42, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

This is too complicated for an outsider to follow. The important point is that AugustO, who earned the respect of many CP editors is back, and I welcome his contributions. I hope that we can all learn to live together in content-creation-harmony. Wschact 19:38, 27 July 2014 (EDT)

Harmony is important, but honesty, too - especially at a trustworthy encyclopedia. --AugustO 19:45, 27 July 2014 (EDT)


Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: The collaborative project. Conservative 22:02, 25 December 2014 (EST)

I'm a little surprised by this "project". A wiki should per se be a collaborative project: I tend to jump on subjects which pique my interest (without an additional layer of administration.) Major obstacles for collaboration on Conservapedia's articles are for me:
  • Some sysops think they own certain articles, and will keep up their preferred version without engaging in a meaningful discussion on the talk-page (see e.g., E=mc²). Some sysops even prevent editing of their pet articles by locking them - I think that you, User:Conservative, are the main culprit when it comes to this tactic!
  • Collaboration prerequisites a certain degree of maturity and honesty. You, User:Conservative, don't have at least one of these characteristics: for example, the "we are many" - charade is just infantile. And how do I know that you won't create new dummy accounts to manipulate discussions? You haven't come clean about User:Historybuff, therefore I don't know whether you will take such crooked steps again.
--AugustO 08:11, 28 December 2014 (EST)
Are you claiming that merely one person is editing using the User: Conservative account? If so, considering your insistence that merely one person is editing using the account, what proof and evidence do you have for this claim? Your little tirade here is not impressive. Also, if you are such a big fan of collaboration, why can't the totality of "User: Conservative"'s edits be a team effort? If "User:Conservative" allows a conservative friend or friends to also use the account, what is that to you? None of the Conservapedia Commandments forbids the sharing of an account.
Next, a very small percentage of my/our articles are locked in terms of editing them.
Furthermore, the Conservapedia wiki article protect tab was created to be used! Conservative 00:12, 31 December 2014 (EST)
It's just common sense:
  • If you are many, your manual of style must be epic: your way of writing is quite unique. Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable that there is more than one editor who shows such a consistent inability to use the preview button (it was created to be used).
  • In your interactions with your fellow sysops, you are treated as a single person.
  • Your medical history: every time you excuse your actions with a lack of sleep, etc., it is the story of a single person.
Hey, it is the internet: You could be a group of medically enhanced Rottweilers, and until your account is closed by your local dog-catcher, we cannot be sure... But for me, you failed the Turing test on multi-personality.
All of the above is not very important: what counts is that you (and your friends/sysops) know how many you are. You know whether you wish to try to deceive your fellow editors.
It is the same as with your dummy account of User:Historybuff: you know whether you acted immorally. For me, it just seems so - and in the internet, appearance is quite important, as we are not able to prove much.
--AugustO 02:40, 31 December 2014 (EST)

AugustO, as far as the inconceivability of User: Conservative being multiple editors, your lack of imagination and germanic stubbornness is not a serious objection.

Second, how would you know if one person or persons using the User: Conservative was using the preview button? Have you done an analysis of the edits concerning this matter? How would you know if persons using the User: Conservative do not use the preview account? How would you know the reason or reasons why "User: Conservativedom" sometimes does not use the preview button?

"User: Conservative" has edited during the day and night. And the illness affecting one of the editors of the User: Conservative account has largely been conquered. For example, a full eight hours of sleep occurred today for the person affected.

Do you believe that one person largely wrote the homosexuality and the Atheist actions against homosexuals article (the title of the article was originally Atheist persecution against homosexuals" if memory serves, but one editor within "User: Conservativedom" objected to this title) and that one person wrote both articles. The article Atheist actions against homosexuals was a shock to those obsessed with the User: Conservative account and the footnoting style is different than the homosexuality article as well. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Have you read C.S. Lewis's article entitled Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism? It should give you pause on psychologically analyzing a writer/writers and his/her/their intentions, etc. etc.

Why don't you ask User: Karajou if User: Conservative is merely one editor? We can guarantee you that User: Karajou will not claim that User: Conservative is merely one editor. Why? Because User: Karajou was informed that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account. And User: Karajou has checkuser and could certainly verify this matter.

In addition, we know you were successfully rebuffed about the "historybuff" matter and that you most certainly do not have the moral high ground. You did not prove the identity/identities of the mysterious historybuff. And you acknowledged (after you shown to be acting in an unbecoming manner) that no Conservapedia rule was broken if a person using the historybuff account was an Conservapedia admin (Of course, the same would apply if persons using the account were admins) so you failed again!

Furthermore, has the User: Conservative account edited the Sun Tzu article? If so, then at least one editor with User: Conservativedom understands the strategy/tactic of stealth and keeping the opposition guessing (User: Conservativedom does not agree with all of Sun Tzu's actions/writings by the way). And we know that the left/liberals such as Alinsky use the tactic of attacking individuals before attacking institutions/groups (Rule #12 of Alinsky's rules for radicals). But, User: Conservative is more than one editor! Conservative 15:04, 31 December 2014 (EST)

By the way, German evolutionists did not think that American creationists would land on the beaches of Normandy. But that is exactly what happened!!! (And Dwight D. Eisenhower appears to have been a creationist [2]).
"We can guarantee you that User: Karajou will not claim that User: Conservative is merely one editor. Why? Because User: Karajou was informed that more than one person has edited using the User: Conservative account."
When did this happen? In the first months of your membership? I doubt it, as it seems unlikely that Andy would bestow such extensive rights as "checkuser" and "administrator" on a communal account.
Even when I started editing in 2011, you hadn't come out as a multitude, that happened during the last one or two years. So, assuming that there is more than one user at your account, he/she/them were invited to do so somewhat after 2011. Am I right?
This is quite troubling: your weren't even able to lobby for upload-rights for User:TheAmericanRedoubt until now, but you gave some person access to "checkuser", "administrator" and "oversight" rights! Either this person never had an account here at Conservapedia, or it had an account before, but wasn't seen worthy to get these rights which you decided to share.
I would call this nepotism, and it is impossible to square it with Conservapedia's claim of being a meritocracy:
Conservapedia is a meritocracy. Administrators are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion, and nominations not accepted. By your own work shall you be known.
But that is just a guideline - and you are not so awfully keen of them, like:
Conservapedia does not allow "sockpuppet" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use.
In addition, we know you were successfully rebuffed about the "historybuff" matter and that you most certainly do not have the moral high ground. You did not prove the identity/identities of the mysterious historybuff. And you acknowledged (after you shown to be acting in an unbecoming manner) that no Conservapedia rule was broken if a person using the historybuff account was an Conservapedia admin (Of course, the same would apply if persons using the account were admins) so you failed again!
You were User:Historybuff. The little incident of your intermingled comments at the main talk page made this obvious. User:Karajou could prove it. Thereby you broke a rule (or do you claim that it is just a guideline and doesn't apply to you?)
--AugustO 03:39, 2 January 2015 (EST)
Why are you assuming that User: Conservative may be merely two persons? Why not more?
The User: Conservative account will continue to be shrouded in mystery to you - a black box of conservatism!
As far as the meritocracy issue, the User: Conservative account produces articles that are useful and of interest to the public, well-researched, accurate and scrupulously footnoted. The articles are some of the most popular articles at Conservapedia. Conservative 04:27, 2 January 2015 (EST)
  • The problems which I mentioned above just increase if there are more than two editors
  • So, you decided what merits being "administrator" or having "checkuser" rights? Isn't that the kind of nomination which is explicitly frowned upon in the guidelines?
  • How many socks are there for your account? I repeat, running User:Historybuff was against Conservapedia's guidelines, and the smokescreen which you put up here won't change this fact.
--AugustO 08:19, 2 January 2015 (EST)

高深莫測 Conservative 21:29, 2 January 2015 (EST)

There is nothing inscrutable (?) about it. You are just unwilling to take responsibility for your actions. --AugustO 01:53, 3 January 2015 (EST)
The User: Conservative account was given admin status before the guidelines page was created. The puts a spanner in your germanic stubbornness, your germanic argumentativeness and your germanic obsession with tradition/rules, Herr O![3] Secondly, Conservapedia's policies/rules were not broken. Conservative 02:10, 3 January 2015 (EST)
You created your sock User:Historybuff on Aug 2, 2014, violating the guideline which is in place since years:
Conservapedia does not allow "sockpuppet" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use.
--AugustO 02:54, 3 January 2015 (EST)

First socks, then shoes. Have you ever examined Conservapedia's logo? In America, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You never demonstrated that an editor (or editors) of the User: Conservative account edited using the historybuff account.

Second, the point is moot as the former Admin Rob Smith made an appellation to a guideline which affects matters as can be seen HERE. And Admin Joaquin Martinez has edited Conservapedia using various accounts and Aschlafly has never once expressed displeasure about this matter. So your quest to prevail in this matter is futile. It is quite impossible that a guideline was broken in this matter!

Feel free to engage in last wordism at juncture. :)Conservative 03:09, 3 January 2015 (EST)

  • Do you deny that User:Historybuff was your sock?
  • Joaquín Martínez doesn't try to hide his identity by using various accounts.
  • I stick to the commandments and guidelines, thank you.
Feel free to run away. --AugustO 03:15, 3 January 2015 (EST)
AugustO, you remind me of the person who became upset with me when I performed the en passant move in a chess game and captured his pawn. He was not familiar with the en passant rule and claimed a rule was being broken by me. Prove your allegation and ignorance of Conservapedia's rules is no excuse. Checkmate, Herr O!!! Once again, you battled against the User: Conservative account and was easily and effortlessly defeated! Conservative 03:32, 3 January 2015 (EST)
At least you admit that User:Historybuff was your pawn. Using it was just not a clever move, but an act of deceit. --AugustO 03:37, 3 January 2015 (EST)

No admission was made. Prove your allegation and know the rules before you claim a rule was broken! Conservative 03:41, 3 January 2015 (EST)

Happy New Year

The editors of the User: Conservative account wish you a happy new year. Conservative 01:06, 2 January 2015 (EST)


Dear AugustO, Thank you for unblocking me. At the same time, TAR also blocked my IP address. If you have access to the block log, could you please unblock that IP as well? Many thanks. Cheers, Wschact 15:59, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Thanks, Wschact 17:43, 11 January 2015 (EST)
"Cheers?" I lived and worked in England and France for 4 years. I very rarely hear Americans say "Cheers". In my limited experience, usually Brits and Australians say it. You Wschact have said it a lot here on CP. Of course, nothing at all wrong with having British or Australian editors here -- on the contrary, the diversity is wonderful. However, you perhaps being from one of those two rather liberal gun free zone countries would explain your frequent anti-American liberal bias in your frequent deletions of strong conservative American and especially firearms/Second Amendment related materials. Now it makes more sense. When I lived over there I frequently heard NRA Second Amendment bashing. I guess you and other self-described, so-called "moderate" (RINO or actual liberal) anti-self defense CP editors perhaps have never seen this flyer. Please examine this World War II flyer:
Perhaps User:Conservative, Karajou or JPatt, when you get a chance would please upload this picture to CP under the file name "Send a gun to defend a British home.jpg"? I would like to use it in both an article and an Pro Second Amendment essay such as Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists. Some of my essays (Conservapedia:Essays#Firearms_and_the_Second_Amendment) will be good conservative American Patriot "sheepdog" responses to AugustO and Wshacts deletion of Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment States' rights and other firearms related conservative content. Thanks.
TheAmericanRedoubt 09:38, 13 January 2015 (EST)
If you wish to talk with User:Wschact about your time in England, perhaps you should unblock him... --AugustO 10:31, 13 January 2015 (EST)

On cats and lives

User:Conservative, please stand by your threats:

A cat only has so many lives. I think you are on your 8th. But in all of the excitement lately, maybe its your 9th. Do you fell lucky?
Don't count on me bailing you out if you go against Karajou and TheAmericanRedoubt. Conservative 09:10, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Well, User:Conservative, I don't intend to "go against Karajou and TheAmericanRedoubt". But if anything happens to my current live, I just hope that you will do the right thing - one can dream. --AugustO 10:30, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Glad to hear. Good faith editors should not be pestered. Conservative 03:20, 14 January 2015 (EST)
I promise to do the right thing. If you are blocked unfairly, I will unblock you.
Second, have you seen THIS? It looks like 2015 could easily be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism! 2014 was a TERRIBLE year for evolutionism.
Who knows what surprises Creation Ministries International and the Discovery Institute will unleash on Darwinism in 2015?!!!!Conservative 06:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)
"I promise to do the right thing. If you are blocked unfairly, I will unblock you." I couldn't ask for more. Unfortunately, our view about unfair blocks differ: I think that my last block - two days for reinserting a section to User talk:Aschlafly (because A talk page is a user's castle!) - was unfair, seen that deleting User talk:SamHB against the explicit wishes of the user stayed unsanctioned: see User_talk:Aschlafly#Deuteronomy_25:13-15 --AugustO 10:05, 15 January 2015 (EST)
You carp about others breaking rule or supposedly breaking rules. You are not above the rules! As a German, one would think you would thank me for my germanic insistence that you obey the rules also! Conservative 16:18, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I'm sure that I'll be admonished every time I break a rule or violate a guideline of this site! What about you? --AugustO 16:22, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I don't detect a thankfulness for my correction. You still have a rebellious spirit! :) Conservative 16:36, 15 January 2015 (EST)

In 19 Months AugustO submits 2 New 1 Paragraph Articles, 13 New Talk Pages; in 2 weeks 83 Related to TheAmericanRedoubt

Since the 22nd of May 2013 (Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AugustO) Mr. O has written 2 new 1 paragraph long articles: Sleswick-Holsatia and Ceslas Spicq. Also 1 new redirect page "article" (Amu). He has created 13 new Talk Page articles. 83 of his edits in only 2 weeks have been of my work or related to my work. Perhaps he might want to please consider paying more attention to this Conservapedia:Guidelines#90.2F10_Rule instead of to every detail of my numerous new article and essay contributions. The gentleman "doth protest too much, methinks". :-) Patience is a virtue Mr. O seem to be still attempting to master. TheAmericanRedoubt 18:08, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Yes, I'm annoyed, too, by the effort it takes to get you to make the slightest corrections, like: the category at Attack on Pearl Harbor. You are still producing a plethora of red links - though you have promised otherwise - and I won't ignore this. --AugustO 18:19, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I just now gave temporary 1 day block since he is ignoring numerous advice from Admin User:Conservative and continues to violate the 90/10 rule. TheAmericanRedoubt 18:25, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Well, User:Conservative, time to think what the right thing to do is... Will you support this abuse of the 90/10 rule? --AugustO 18:34, 15 January 2015 (EST)

I receive a report that you are blocking the good faith efforts of someone who wants to create content.
I think you are on your way to having your blocking rights removed. If that happens, a long block against you could last quite a long time. Due to my reduced activity level, I might not even notice if you are blocked for some time even if I was going to undo the block.
I have some projects I am tackling plus I expect to be tacking two more soon so I need to catch up on things. I had an accident happen to me recently and was temporarily injured which set me behind on things. But I recovered recently so I am moving forward. So I told the editor that I cannot referee this one and to refer the matter to Karajou. Try not to pick any unnecessary fights with other editors. That is my advice. Conservative 19:15, 15 January 2015 (EST)
So, you would always do the right thing, if not all members of your collective were to busy... --AugustO 19:23, 15 January 2015 (EST)
(EC) Sorry to hear about your accident, I wish you a speedy recovery! --AugustO 19:25, 15 January 2015 (EST)
Thanks on wishes for a recovery.
Second, User: ConservativeS (plural) fought an ideological delaying action as far as evangelical/militant atheism caused by the fad of New Atheism, but as you can see HERE and the articles decline of global atheism and decline of the atheist movement, the cavalry of Christian apologists, atheists shooting themselves in the foot and circumstances has arrived!!!
To a large degree, our work is done. Like the proverbial and mysterious, high plains drifter/gunslinger, we will be less active and largely ride off into the sunset. :) It's time to tackle new challenges. :) Conservative 20:09, 15 January 2015 (EST)

@AugustO: I would recommend that you accept what Conservapedia has become, and stop trying to change that. You are in great danger. User TAR, who doesn't seem to be well-versed in how this place operates, has been making extremely thinly-veiled threats against you, with the reference to 8 lives or whatever. A phrase that he seems to have picked up from Cons. Stay away. That's what I'm doing.

@Cons: (1) You might want to remind TAR that a few days ago he made an edit with the word "insidious" in the comment, referring to what he was reverting. You might want to remind him that people have gotten into a lot of trouble for using inflammatory words in edit comments. Like "hideous", if I recall correctly. (2) Perhaps you ought to be careful about saying that your work is done and that you might "ride off into the sunset" and "tackle new challenges". Someone might come along and delete your user and talk pages :-) :-) :-).

@both of you: I was delighted to see you two having a conversation on my talk page recently, and I have joined in the conversation. Feel free to come and visit me. I can't really go "outside" when my home state is described as treasonous, so I have to stay at home. I get lonely at times.

SamHB 22:21, 15 January 2015 (EST)

I'm aware of the - rather unveiled - threads, both by User:Conservative and User:TheAmericanRecoubt. Conservapedia stands at a croosroad at this moment, and for me, it is just irresponsible not to show the pitfalls of the way which is likely to be chosen.... --AugustO 04:34, 16 January 2015 (EST)
AugustO, if you get blocked by someone, don't count on me to look into the matter or to notice. I am less active on the wiki now and plan on being less active as well.
In addition, lately you have become so petty and contentious, I cannot say it would trouble me if you no longer edited the wiki. No hard feelings, but that's just the way it is. Conservative 08:26, 16 January 2015 (EST)

FFAF is not a sock account

FFAF is not a sock account. Didn't the Facebook category tag for Freedom from Atheism Foundation which I removed tell you that it was not a sock? I don't think Aschalfly account will be creating a Facebook category tag anytime soon. :) Conservative 03:23, 14 January 2015 (EST)

  • How did User:Karajou deduce that it is in fact a sock-account? He has "checkuser"-rights, hasn't he?
  • You pride yourself with stealth and subterfuge, therefore I cannot take the things you say at face value. --AugustO 15:57, 14 January 2015 (EST)
Stealth is not telling untruths. A stealth fighter pilot is not lying to the radar operators of an opposing country. :)
Karajou probably blocked the person because there was overlap with another person using the same IP for some reason.
Third, people often think reciprocity is deserved when they do something for others. The Freedom from Atheism Foundation (FFAF) has plugged several CP atheism articles. So it is natural that someone would create an article on their foundation at CP. Given that CP covers the atheism topic with some depth, a volunteer/fan of theirs adding an article on FFAF is not unreasonable. Social media plays a significant role in social movements and they have a notable and growing social media presence. They are also financially backed by a large foundation I have been told. Furthermore, they are taking steps to grow into a much larger organization. Conservative 16:31, 14 January 2015 (EST)
August0 why do you say that I am a 'sock' of Conservative ? I don't even know that that means ? FFAF 09:37, 15 January 2015 (EST)
A sock is a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is a duplicate user account. Don't worry about it. I am an admin and I straightened out the misunderstanding. Conservative 16:33, 15 January 2015 (EST)
This is indeed troubling. If FFAF is unduly blocked, Conservative may not notice due to time/commitments and having largely ridden off into the sunset like the Lone/Many Ranger(s). Then who will revert FFAF's unfair block? Perhaps one of the other admins should keep a particular eye out for FFAF being harassed or blocked. Incidentally, I have changed a section heading in Essay:Worst Liberal Movies. Somebody please check it; I believe it is an improvement as mentioned in Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal Movies. :) ConsMovies 09:56, 20 January 2015 (EST)

My Approach to the Categorization Problem

content created by User:Conservative and User:AugustO - subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy

Here is what I'll do when I encounter nonsensical categories:

  • I will delete them - once.
  • I will explain the deletion on the talk-page.

If the categories are reintroduced, so be it.

In this case, I deleted Category : Science Fiction (already covered by Category:Science Fiction Authors), Category : Dystopian Fiction (covered by Category : Dystopian Fiction Authors, and Category : Libertarianism (covered by Category : Libertarian Authors). --AugustO 05:41, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Enjoy your preoccupation with category tags and your blocking powers while you can. Because they are both coming to an end! You were warned Category Tag Nazi! Your blitzkreig of category tag complaints will soon be kaput! Conservative 07:00, 16 January 2015 (EST)
User:Conservative, you are insulting me. --AugustO 07:04, 16 January 2015 (EST)
You are being inhospitable to new editors and needlessly contentious. I have had it. I asked the owner of the website to strip you of your blocking powers. I believe Karajou agrees with me on this matter. I am not going to discuss this matter with you anymore because it is obvious that I am talking to a brick wall. Conservative 07:32, 16 January 2015 (EST)

It will be very ironic to be punished for something which should be so uncontroversial as the first rule of categorization: nothing should be [in]* a category and [at the same time in]* one of its (direct) super/sub-categories. Andy often emphasizes the importance of logic for this site, so it is very surprising that he'll enforce (as you, User:Conservative imply) illogical categorization!

It is really not rocket-science: R. Heinlein was an author who wrote science-fiction - thereby he belongs into category:Science Fiction Authors. He doesn't belong into category:Science Fiction, as any reader who looks at category:Science Fiction will be surprised that he obviously doesn't fit in a subcategory....

OTOH category:Best Selling Authors should not be a sub-category of category:Science Fiction Authors (as it is now), as it includes authors like Glenn Beck and Agatha Christie... category:Best Selling Authors is also at the moment a sub-category of category:Liberal Authors, implying that all best sellers are written by liberals...

New editors should understand logic, too! So, please, show a little bit more logic, and a little less aggression. --AugustO 07:34, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Don't think listing someone as an "African" and a "African author" or a "conservative" and "conservative author" is the end of the world. This is especially true for small categories. I abridged the manual of style. Wsacht's endless fussing which sometimes was petty was tiresome. So is yours. Conservative 07:54, 16 January 2015 (EST)

(*: edited for clarification)

--AugustO 08:42, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015

See: Essay: Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015.

Stronger, higher, faster! Conservative 19:46, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Hey, another prediction! Go, Team Conservative! --AugustO 06:43, 18 January 2015 (EST)


Some German character traits mentioned by the the Schnitzel Republic: Stubbornness, efficiency/economical and constructive creativeness.[4]

Essay: What if I fail?

There is a little bit of German in every great champion? Jawohl? :)

You will do your category tags right. We must have order! Conservative 02:34, 20 January 2015 (EST)

One of the most childish comments I've read on Conservapeida. Shouldn't an administrator of Conservapedia, someone who represents this site, stand above mocking ordinary editors? Not everything can be excused by your relative youth: you are a member of this site for nearly eight years - so, even if you have started as a high-school pupil, you should have finished college by now. Start to act the part!
I haven't read your essay yet: is it about failed predictions? --AugustO 04:11, 20 January 2015 (EST)
What failed predictions? Could you be more specific? We both know that you cannot! Define the word "soon" taking into account Christian patience and persistence and not worldly impatience! Conservative 04:31, 20 January 2015 (EST)
You are sounding like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". --AugustO 04:36, 20 January 2015 (EST)
From the Merriam Webster:
  1. obsolete: at once : immediately
  2. without undue time lapse : before long [soon after sunrise]
  3. in a prompt manner : speedily [as soon as possible] [the sooner the better] [no sooner said than done]
  4. archaic : before the usual time
  5. in agreement with one's choice or preference: willingly [I'd just as soon walk as drive]
--AugustO 04:47, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Feel free to demonstrate there has been a undue time lapse. Something you have never done! Conservative 04:57, 20 January 2015 (EST)

The Question evolution! campaign booklet Saga

50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released Feb 15, 2012
A Question evolution! campaign group now has 3 writers and at least 3 Question Evolution! booklets/books will be coming out. Some of the booklets/books will be designed for young people. May 1, 2012
A 15 questions for evolutionists booklet and book for middle school students will soon be coming out and they are going to be heavily promoted and distributed. Jun 19,2012
SS Evolution! passengers get on your life jackets! A barrage of 100+ page Question evolution! campaign booklet torpedoes is headed your way! Sep 19, 2012
The Question evolution! book for middle school students, edited by a Christian apologist, gains in popularity. Jul 11, 2013
Canadian teacher at a Christian school will be serving as a science editor of the Question evolution! campaign book for middle school students. Jul 18, 2013

Three years ago: the booklet is going to be released, two and a half year ago: it will soon be coming out, two years ago: it is headed your way!, one and a half year ago: it gains in popularity. Yeah, that's an "undue time lapse", as nothing has happened!

--AugustO 05:08, 20 January 2015 (EST)

A few things:
First an excerpt from some writer: "It’s taken almost five more years of hard work, and plenty of rejection, to get to the point where I’m happy to let something mellow in a drawer for a while before sending it out, or where I can stand the (admittedly) long wait times it takes to hear back from literary journals."[5] Another excerpt from a writer: "My CP [critique partner] wrote and worked and studied for TEN YEARS before getting published."[6] Good writing takes time. Next time you feel yourself being impatient about various announcements of events happening soon, see it as an exercise in patience. It would also be helpful, if you had something to pass the time. Why don't you work on providing satisfactory answers to the 15 questions for evolutions. That is something you never did!
We have been sparring about creation/evolution and wiki matters for awhile. I thought my recent post which featured a post from blog which focuses on German culture/Germany was funny and so did my friend who is of German descent. You did not find it humorous. Given your recent bout of ill humor and my recent schedule demands, I think it is best if I largely take a break from sparring with you on talk pages. No hard feelings on my part. Conservative 21:43, 20 January 2015 (EST)

First, let me say what a pleasure it is to visit once agin with my favorite two people, this time in August's house. The view from your front window is specactular, and your music collection is most impressive. (I'd like to meet in Cons's house next time, but he keeps it locked. He has a front entryway, but he keeps burning it down.)

Now Cons, I'd like to talk to you about offensive national stereotypes. This is serious, and I'd like you to pay attention. Really. I apologize if this comes across as mindless "political correctness", but I'm serious.

I spent a fair amount of time this morning reading a number of web pages and other sources about what "wohl" and "Ja wohl" really mean. It's a very complicated and nuanced word. Google translate says "well", in the health sense, along with "probably", "perhaps", "possibly", etc. The Harper-Collins German Concise Dictionary (it's anything but concise!) lists it as a "Schlüsselwort" (key word, important word) and gives many meanings, including "comfortable" and "at ease", along with a great number of idioms, such as "er weiß das sehr wohl" -- "he knows that perfectly well". (But they've gotten rid of the "ß", haven't they?) The combination "Ja wohl" means "yes emphatically" or "yes certainly". As a response to a request it begins to take on the meaning that you seem to ascribe to it, from watching Hogan's Heros and various other silly World War II things: "Yes, sir!" or "I'll do it right away!"

There are web pages that go into detail about its "Yes, sir!" meaning in the military, and the fact that many Americans associate that with the Nazi era.

I've read the "Schnitzelrepublic" web page. It was well-written, light-hearted, and affectionate. But I don't think you have used the term in a light-hearted way with AugustO. Please remember that people can easily be offended by thoughtless national stereotypes, especially when those stereotypes are informed by a Hogan's Heros mentality. And please remember that the Nazi era was not a pleasant time, for Germany or anyone else, and try to make more erudite (love that word!) and well-thought-out comments.

That said, I'm sure AugustO is very efficient.  :-)

Now you two can go back to fighting over what "soon" means, especially in the context of saying just when a booklet will be coming out. Three years is a long time to wait, but I'm sure it will be worth the wait. Idea: Cons, why don't you promise not to block either of us until the booklet comes out?

One more thing: August: can you send me a usable email address? I will not divulge it to anyone else without your permission. My email is at the top of my user page.

SamHB 00:52, 21 January 2015 (EST)

Hi - A[...] O[...] --EOM --AugustO 08:08, 21 January 2015 (EST)
I think we're all glad to hear that the RMS Creationist is plowing full-steam ahead into the iceberg of Darwinism.--DonnyC 22:44, 20 January 2015 (EST)
That literally made me laugh out loud, something which the internet rarely accomplishes. SamHB 00:52, 21 January 2015 (EST)

@User:Conservative: Interesting quotes. I'm missing the part where they are telling you oh, you must announce your book first, and then start to write it! BTW: I don't see your announcements as exercises in patience, I see them as misleading advertising. --AugustO 08:16, 21 January 2015 (EST)

User talk:OGSMEDIA

content created by User:Wschact, User:AugustO and subject to Conservapedia's copyright policy


Hello, OGSMEDIA, 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, OGSMEDIA!

--AugustO 04:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Unfortunately, OGS Media sounds like the advertising department of "Offgrid Survival"... --AugustO 04:10, 16 January 2015 (EST)

Could you please explain your relationship to Off Grid Survival Media? Thanks, Wschact 14:31, 20 January 2015 (EST)

--AugustO 18:18, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Personal tools