User talk:Jenkins/Archive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Jenkins/Archive1, 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, Jenkins/Archive1!

şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:13, 20 September 2007 (EDT)



Come on over! --LinkedToCommiePlot 10:53, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Duly noted, but I think this link on my page would get me into more trouble than I am in already ;) --Jenkins 11:02, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


Hey, really sorry about the edit conflicts there. Which one should we keep? "Psychology" or "psychology"? Feebasfactor 11:50, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

It cracked me up, too. After reading through yours, I'd vote for mine. It's shorter and less verbose than yours, but it's better than copy-pasting since it's a non-public-domain source. The articles I created are short and could use some expansion, though; so if you can contribute more to my quasi-stubs, be my guest! I just wanted to fill out the psychology links quickly since I got to head out soon. --Jenkins 11:54, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. I wasn't sure about the public-domain-ness of the source; best to keep it short and legal, then add more later. Feebasfactor 12:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)


  • Very brave! Even I think twice about going there! The paranoia level must now be at Defcon3! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:24, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
There? ... Or do you mean the people who came here to solicit certain external links? --Jenkins 16:26, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see... I think... but right now, I'm slightly handicapped in terms of communication, starting even with basic mail (although I should be able to send mails via CP, come to think of it...). And I never used IMs and never had the urge to try it. Right now, I'm mostly a smallscale editor. Maybe I'll get/need it once I get more settled in? --Jenkins 16:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Protection spree?

(The initial post was removed from Conservative's talk page after just six minutes)

Apologies if this comes over a bit stronger than intended - I only try to help and learn here on CP, but...

  • 21:44, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Internet Infidels" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 20:50, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "JP Holding" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 17:36, 24 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Vestigial organs" (same reason as toe [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 17:18, 22 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Brights Movement" (same reason as atheism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 20:34, 11 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Creation science" (same as theory of evolution [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
  • 17:31, 5 September 2007 Conservative (Talk | contribs) protected "Atheism" (no more affirmative action for Ungtss's liberalism [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

I didn't bother to check beyond September, but (to be blunt) the concept of collaboration on a wiki is completely lost on you, isn't it? I'm sorry, but you never replied to my question on Talk:Brights Movement (Can I assume that you don't bother to check the talk pages of articles you "own"?), so I'll ask here.

I couldn't help but notice that you instantly protect most articles you contribute to in a major way (notable exception being Greenleaf, although I still kinda wait for a talk page reply there... Have you moved on from there? Then I might start editing in earnest there...) - is that normal behavior here on CP? I'm new, so the question is genuine. I'm honestly confused - CP's way of doing things is radically different than that of most projects I watched or joined, so I'm not taking anything for granted by now. --Jenkins 22:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I have found that often atheists get very aggressive on wikis. Conservative 22:08, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
So the answer is to simply protect all articles that have anything to do with atheism (and thus with religion, and thus with creationism, and thus with evolution, which is the other end of the chain)?
I repeat my question: Is this the CP way of doing things? Blind protection because some evil atheist could get the wild idea to edit? --Jenkins 22:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
(I wanted to ask about this too, and, well, this looks like the place). I can't see that any vandalism has occured on those articles... in fact, for some of them, the almost sole contributor for a while now has been you. Maybe you could give other editors the benefit of the doubt, Conservative? If vandalism or edit wars do occur, then you could justifiably protect the pages again. But to do so pre-emptively just seems rather unnecessaray... and prevents anyone else from contributing, either. Feebasfactor 22:20, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
In one case at least (Brights Movement), the protection came one minute after the initial edit, even. This sort of bunker mentality might appear like cowardice to an outside observer. I'm not saying that it is or that I hold this view, but when "aggressive atheists" are the reason why practically nobody else gets a chance to contribute, one has to ask how afraid we are of these evil people. --Jenkins 22:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Jenkins, you should know we have other ways of handling disputes like this! Conservative, please refrain from public displays with editors, please! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:51, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
<bad Japanese imitation>Hai, hai...</bad Japanese imitation> --Jenkins 22:52, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
  • ? I have reopened most of the articles there is absolutely no indication of vandalism to any of the ones I have reviewed, and another Admin previously found the same thing, and unlocked a couple of them. They will remain open. They have not proven problematic, not even Atheism. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 23:04, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Literally (I assume), "Yes, yes...". In this case it was more of a "Ah, okay, gotcha". Regarding your unprotection: I'm sure I won't be the only one, but let me be the first one to say "Thank you!" :) --Jenkins 23:08, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
I'll second that thanks. And on that note, I'll also get the heck off your talk page already... Feebasfactor 23:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I am going to leave it to you guys to let me know if anything is locked again. Please be responsible, and no wholesale revisions, and keep an eye on the articles, and revert any vandalism that might come about, ok? My contact info is on my User page. Thanks! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Appeal to emotion

Jenkins, after you cool off, please make concrete suggestions for improving the news about Myanmar which I wrote so hastily. For example, is it so erroneous that it should simply be reverted? Or can you think of a better way to describe the clashes among the Burmese? --Ed Poor Talk 13:56, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Blocked for lying

  • several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it

This means that Ed Poor ... tried to add ... bias.

Yet you asked, Please point out where I said "Ed Poor tried to add bias".

Either you did - or you did not - accuse me of adding bias.

You can't have it both ways: that is lying. Liars can't be trusted. We only allow trustworthy contributors here.

You may appeal your block to Mr. Schlafly, but he's a lawyer. You're unlikely to be able to trick him. --Ed Poor Talk 08:52, 1 October 2007 (EDT)


Jenkins, your posting to Talk:Main Page was garbage. Be productive, or leave. Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:55, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Roger that. I shall refrain from pointing out the flaws in Conservative's argument and instead focus on improving the site. --Jenkins 09:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about that

I was reverting edits of a sanctioned vandal [1]. Slash & burn, you know. Rob Smith 16:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

No harm done (even though it would've caused some confusion during the next archiving). But maybe a "Look what the edit did" step should be added before the "Slash" part? :P --Jenkins 16:26, 5 October 2007 (EDT)


You are an overachiever! HelpJazz 22:47, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Eh, he was slow :P Although it would've been kinda tiring, so thanks for cutting him off :) --Jenkins 22:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
No problemo. HelpJazz 22:52, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Better reference

Thanks, this is more clear. I like having readers know who says what.

The best formula is:

X said Y about Z

Cheers. --Ed Poor Talk 11:58, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Sorry

I wasn't trying to put the blame on you. I guess, even coming from me, it might have seemed that way, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. You are definitely a very dedicated and perseverant editor... Maybe if I want to be clear and not-indirect I'll just use email next time. Feebasfactor 18:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Reason for short block

Wikis are to contribute information, not delete it. In a dozen or so edits this afternoon, nearly every one has been to delete information or links or sources. For example, you deleted factually correct and informative information from young mass murderers on a technicality that his victims were injured by gunshots and did not immediately die. That can be handled by adding a footnote, not by deleting info. In the case of dead-end links, they can be handled by adding an entry for the link, not by deleting the link. Your pattern of removal was proceeding so quickly that a block became necessary.--Aschlafly 16:26, 7 December 2007 (EST)

My removal from "Young Mass Murderers" wasn't a technicality. It was just me fixing factually incorrect information: There was no mass murder because nobody aside from the "killer" died, at least according to the article. You now say "did not immediately die" (emphasis mine), so how many people died from their wounds, and why aren't they listed as kills? As it stands, you got somebody who wounded a bunch of people before committing suicide, and you stamp him as a mass murderer just because it suits whatever point you want to make, it seems. Are we also counting the various prevented amok runs as mass murder (with a footnote that it was technically only intended mass murder)?
Also: What is informative information? Is there uninformative information?
And the delinking was me cleaning up behind one of your sysops: Conservative deleted articles (thus signaling that they were not wanted), but didn't remove the links pointing at them. That led to those links being in the Wanted Pages list. Would you rather like me to override a sysop decision and recreate those articles as I see fit?
All in all, I'm extremely insulted for being blocked just because you failed to comprehend what I was doing. Normally, people would just ask if there was lack of clarity. I seriously thought that my "Removing reference to deleted article" was clear enough, especially when I then told Conservative how to help me in my efforts (before you blocked me). --Jenkins 16:44, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Personal tools