The socks which were blocked, including yours, had a single IP, but I will accept your explanation. Please continue to edit in the site. Karajou 19:13, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
Greetings from a fellow gay (and very much out and proud!) editor at conservapedia! --JHunter 21:13, 23 April 2012 (EDT)
- I'm sorry, wut?
A special thank you
Thank you for adding a category to Chomsky hierarchy. Perhaps you could have a look at the articles I'm interested in on my talk page and see if any of these need categorising. RolandPlankton 18:46, 11 May 2012 (EDT)
Dear Brenden, thanks for joining Conservapedia! Its great to see individuals with diverse views join the encyclopedia in order to help create and improve articles all around. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:37, 12 May 2012 (EDT)
Keep your grimy hands off my pages before I get one of the admins to kick you to the curb. --FPhelps 00:02, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
- right...brenden 00:05, 15 May 2012 (EDT)
Your Welcome Message
Thanks for the welcome message! Glad to be here! PCorbett 00:56, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
You've got guts Brenden!
That's why I recommended you for promotion. Check user rights log! EJamesW 15:08, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
Stick to the point
- Eh, I'd rather see it as the Saloon bar style pages of social networking sites.brenden 19:11, 12 June 2012 (EDT)
Sorry about the all caps, needed to get your attention. By what do you mean, that "refusing sysop direction about talk page use" is a a valid reason for a block? As I said before, sysops are janitors, not the thought police, and dissension was never a blockable reason, at least not in any of the CP commandments. brenden 12:19, 21 June 2012 (EDT)
If by "social issues", you mean things like gay marriage, not things like social security, then yes. However, there's differing opinions on abortion. All libertarians are opposed to government funding for abortion (with most considering it a separate issue than government funding in general), but we differ on whether it should be legal at all, or under what circumstances. Also, there are different kinds of libertarians, some of which are more socially liberal/fiscally conservative than others. Libertarian socialists, for instance, would not be fiscally conservative. Gregkochuconn 12:50, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
- I should add that most of the time, when we say "libertarian", we're talking about right-wing libertarians, who are in fact fiscally conservative. Libertarian (should have small l but it starts a sentence) socialists are essentially "voluntary socialists", so to speak. They believe socialism should happen not because the government says so but because the people say so and do it voluntarily. Big-L Libertarianism refers specifically to the Libertarian Party, who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. However, in 2008 they nominated Bob Barr for President, and he was pretty socially conservative - he supported DOMA and the War on Drugs. But a lot of us weren't happy about that. Gregkochuconn 12:56, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
Hello Brenden, good job with the creation of this template. It gives the user the opportunity to realize that he/she is not editing appropriately and correct his/her edits. This is much better than an immediate block, in my opinion. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:40, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
I've waited all my life to be called eccentric! Which parts do you agree with?Sambiam
- Pretty much most.brenden 13:20, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Participate in Cold fusion?
. From your comment, you might have sufficient knowledge to participate in improving the article. You are ignorant of the literature in the field. If you are willing to learn, to read scientific papers, and are capable of understanding them and the issues, your participation could be useful. Game?
I don't have SkipCaptcha, and until then, it's tedious to add sources. I might do it without the http prefix, anyone could then fix them. (I used this trick on Wikipedia to add legitimate links where the meta blacklist was still active. Users can just copy and paste the text into their browser address bar, most browsers will fill in the http: etc.)
As to the other wiki, I never "left," though I found participation tedious. I was sick the last week and had some time and did a bit. The flies descended in droves. I was just promoted to ordinary user, and further promotions to blocked are likely. Some there cannot tolerate dissent, not real and knowledgeable dissent. That wiki cannot realize its stated mission, which is, with the active community there, impractical, pure idealism with no muscle. Nice thought. Useless. The decision might be reversed, it was before, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm actually relieved. Look what it took to get one simple change done, correcting an error about "electrodes." Look at the other suggested corrections, sitting on the Talk page with no opposition, but if I actually make the changes, it's very clear: I'll be reverted without comment, and then if I write about it, I'll be whacked for "wall of text." The site purpose, as stated on the Main page, is a dead letter. There is no room for constructive discussion. Unless....
Oh, by the way. The content you restored was from that other wiki, largely, plagiarized. Conservative, on the talk page, requested that original text be supplied. That's what I'd done. I can source anything I say there; if not, I'd happily consent to removal. Only one thing there I might have trouble sourcing, the statement about skepticism about certain commercial ventures among cold fusion researchers. I know the researchers, by invitation, I'm on the private mailing list that connects them. But the statements aren't generally public, and the researchers mostly stay out of controversy, they just publish in scientific journals and conference papers. It's true, though. Rossi, in particular, has a horrible reputation, even though many researchers think there is a real Nickel hydride effect -- from publications of such by scientific researchers. A real effect and a commercial application might be many decades apart. --Abd 14:00, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
- Ill recommend you for SkipCaptcha. brenden 14:51, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
- Thanks, it was done. That doesn't magically create the time, but it's a step. --Abd 17:57, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
Sometimes a contributor of information to Wikipedia then contributes the same material here. That is obviously allowed because the contributor is the source of the material.--Andy Schlafly 14:17, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
- Indeed, I should have checked.brenden 22:01, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Blocking for parody
For general idiocy like "Toon"'s, please feel free to use a permaban. --James Wilson 17:59, 9 September 2012 (EDT)
- Ok, got that. Those users can always edit on Unfunnypedia for all I carebrenden 18:48, 9 September 2012 (EDT)
- Yeah, he can write Wilde "quotes" for all I care! :) --James Wilson 18:50, 9 September 2012 (EDT)
Are you going to block this guy again. He is like my shadow, following me to every page and changing things. I've agreed to leave him alone, but all he does is come to pages I edit and mess them up. CraigF2 11:28, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
No, Horace is not allowed back at all, and that is for the life of this website; only ASchlafly can authorize his return. The reasons are many, and they include edit wars, fighting, inserting false info, multiple socks, etc. Karajou 00:33, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
- I'll thank you not to be Mr. Schlafly. brenden 01:43, 27 September 2012 (EDT)