User talk:Jpatt/2012

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Blank3r

Good job stopping him.JonM 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

Adambro

Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --PhilipN 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)

AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--Jpatt 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
I will, thanks for the info. --PhilipN 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

RaymondW

Hi Jpatt:

My former account on Conservapedia was named r136a1. The reason you provided for blocking this account is user name policy: please consider recreating your account with a real first name and last initial. Could you please tell me where this policy can be found on Conservapedia? And also, just to clarify, I realize it is not a real name, but it is not a random string of letters and numbers; it is the name of the most luminous star. By the way, your page says that you block liberal fascists; but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that most agree that fascists are extremely right wing, but liberals are left wing.

The username policy is at the discretion of administrators to help combat troll accounts. Please see the link above describing Jonah Goldberg's book for further clues to fascism.--Jpatt 20:10, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? Lansing 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --Jpatt 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
What a shame, indeed. Lansing 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. DynaboyJ 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)

You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--Jpatt 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. DynaboyJ 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)
Also, Thanks! --Joaquín Martínez 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)
Once again! --Joaquín Martínez 12:37, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Rubio

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. Ayzmo :) 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.RachelW 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --Jpatt 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)
Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. RachelW 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. Ayzmo :) 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. RachelW 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --Jpatt 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Vandalism

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --GeorgeLi 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Yea, Oops--Jpatt 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --GeorgeLi 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

MPR

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --DamianJohn 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Two issues

Noted--Jpatt 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Thanks

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. Ayzmo :) 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --Jpatt 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Hi redneck

You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --Sextertainer 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --Sextertainer 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --Jpatt 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Description

Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,

(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.

Thank you, Sarah

Hi Sarah, try this Conservapedia:About and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly Andy_Schlafly. --Jpatt 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)
Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah

Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution

Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - Rdsmith 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012

"all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--Jpatt 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)
That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution. Rdsmith 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012
Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [1]. --Jpatt 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate Nate 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --Jpatt 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)
The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.
So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- Rdsmith 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012
I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--Jpatt 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? HarveyG 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)

White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [2] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --Jpatt 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)

Suggestions

Thank you so much for your great work and for the welcome message. I am so encouraged to see this truly excellent encyclopedia representing what wikipedia could have been with some serious intellectual honesty.

A few suggestions: 1) Human Life International has a new president and is undergoing some great improvements in their ministry, including updating articles and resources. Perhaps they could be added to your top pro-life websites. 2) lovefacts.org is a veritable gold-mine of good medical references documenting the harms of induced abortion and contraception, which we need mine to improve many articles on the subject. 3) pop.org is the Population Research Institutes homepage; it is a pro-life alternative to PP's Guttmacher Institute, and they expose the myth of overpopulation and the numerous human rights abuses throughout the world in the name of "population control." Perhaps "overpopulation myth" or something similar would be a good page to refute these widespread errors driving the culture of death and its devotion to abortion and contraception.

I look forward to contributing in a forum where my input is appreciated and allowed to benefit the souls of all who may read the articles. Frankgyn 16:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Awesome, glad to see your interest and feel free to update articles or create new ones. Blessings. --Jpatt 21:34, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

Holy Week

I'll be mostly absent this week. Blessed Easter! --Jpatt 19:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

Reversion of vandalism

I blocked User:ShagMe but I am unable to revert the vandalism due to the spam filter inexplicably preventing me from doing so. It appears that a series of colons (that I obviously can't type here lest the spam filter get me again) is triggering the problem. WesleySHello! 18:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution!

American young earth creationism increased in the last two years - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!.[3]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of evolutionism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[4][5] Conservative 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for removing the It Gets Worse link from the Anti-Semite website!

Thank you for removing the link to the It Gets Worse page, from a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic "Southern Conservative" website which blames the Jews for Communism, feminism, Facebook, and Psychoanalysis. I hate anti-Semitism, and I know Conservapedia doesn't endorse it either. I know it was a mistake that you posted the link first, but I looked at the website (Jett and Jahn media), and I was disgusted at the anti-Semitism and racism they espouse. They even have downloadable games which show the Ku Klux Klan as good guys! These guys give conservatism a bad name, and they are thankfully nobodies in the conservative movement.

You are indeed a great editor, who learns from his mistakes like any decent human being! Conservapedia forever! -RKLuffy88 June 18, 2012

I have notified Jewish Internet Defense Force. Thanks again for pointing that out. --Jpatt 23:00, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks

Thank you. Changes made. You may lock the page again if you wish. Wschact 21:32, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Malaysian woman shooter.

"but is there any discussion from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, WaPo, LAtimes on the athlete in question?." Yes, yes there is.:

RayM 22:30, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

I stand corrected. Nice job.--Jpatt 22:40, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

What do you mean?

What do you mean when you said this: Thank God you registered here to set the record straight when I posted my opinion on the Obama birth certificate issue on the talk page. I am a cynical person and I usually interpret responses from people I do not know to be sarcastic, I may be wrong, but what was your intention?--TheQuestioner 13:04, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Your assertion about Obama's life and conspiracies are just opinions not based on facts. We know little to nothing about Obama and to claim "proven beyond a doubt" is just absurd. The man is a serial liar, his view of America and of capitalism is foreign to most. He may or may not be a natural-born. His secrecy prevents the rest of us from knowing for certain anything about him. Call it a conspiracy theory, I'm not offended but don't act like you have the facts because nobody does.--Jpatt 16:22, 3 August 2012 (EDT)


The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry
"We know little to nothing about Obama" Are you counting the facts about his life mentioned in Dreams from My Father? Or do you think that part or all of his autobiography is untrue? GregG 16:33, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
You believe 36 discrepancies? [6] You can't trust a liar in small matters and surely you can't trust a liar in big matters.--Jpatt 16:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I'm sorry I can't give a full reply right now; I would like to take some time to check out the book and the video rather than jumping to conclusions as is standard for the hearsay society. GregG 17:06, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Well, I didn't read either book and I have no interest. I can comment without being accused of acting like the hearsay society. Jumping to conclusions is kind of odd given the facts - Obama is a known liar. You either give him a pass about his past statements, which is a guide to his character or you're not prepared to comment because you want to hear both sides first. I have made up my mind and he is guilty of whatever accusation is tossed at him. Am I right? I'll await your research. If I am wrong, I'll ask for forgiveness. --Jpatt 18:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Our party recently had famous Austrian-born actor Arnold Schwarzenegger as California Governor. State governors can be foreign-born, and our party whether we like it or not has selected a foreign-born man to run for governor. The birth issue as you've said is un-confirmable and isn't it more important that Obama is ruining our country with his high tax goals and taking away individual rights on health care? Why not put the unconfirmed birth issue in the main body of the article - it's not like all conservatives agree with the birthers, conservative writer Ann Coulter doesn't agree with the birthers - see here from Fox News: [7] - the person who posted the video seems to be a birther because they are anti-Coulter, but she is a well-known conservative writer and she completely rejects the birther argument. Why not have the intro focus on Obama's tax-and-spend, and anti-individual-rights agenda in his health care policies?--TheQuestioner 18:02, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
I don't see the problem. In my opinion is that Obama's position on a child born from a botched abortion is to be left to die is just plain evil. Maybe that should be the second sentence. Regardless, this is not my encyclopedia. You are certainly free to make changes but we do frown upon deleting material. So rearrange as you see fit. --Jpatt 18:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Thank you!

Cheers for unlocking the LSD article for me, much appreciated. Little bit busy right now so might not get round to it till tomorrow Samb

Go Question Evolution! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Creationist benchmark is hit and exceeded in the United States

Creation Ministries International breaks through key USA key benchmark! The first Question evolution! sound barrier has been breached. Watch the campaign grow faster and faster and faster. USA! USA! USA! Conservative 05:19, 8 September 2012 (EDT)

Sound barrier.jpg

Liberal users

I having trouble with two liberal users who are insisting on hiding known facts. Could you please explain to them that this is not allowed here. CraigF2 20:15, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Craig, I know the feeling. They come here to poke holes in everything and are determined to show they are right and conservatives are wrong. There is not much you can do. Eventually, they will get bored with attacking you and move on. Fact tags stuff is nonsense here. They can spend all day fact tagging every page. Their lazy butts need to do a search for the answer or leave the statement alone. --Jpatt 14:26, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
I agree, but you are an administrator and while I can fight the good fight, some of these people threaten to block me and abuse me, calling me a liar and so forth. Take a look at what one of these guys wrote at On the Road. That this family friendly website would allow such glowing praise for an intensely liberal book which supports drug and alcohol abuse, deviant sexual pleasure and rejection of Jesus, makes me sick. I'd delete it, but MattyD would probably get his crony brendan to block me. CraigF2 11:02, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Ad Hominem attack

here. While I know you might not like Sharon too much, and that you do not get along together very well, I must ask you to please refrain from ad hominem attacks. These comments only serve to inflame discussion even more. Thank you for understanding, brenden 22:22, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

Who said I don't like Sharon or that we don't get along? Craig has created more pages in his short time here than Sharon has. She is busy with U.S.A. wiki. When somebody attacks new users with a superiority comment--I take sides. She is not being helpful and your attention to Craig is not creating a welcoming environment. We all want perfection but there is no test here. Fix what is wrong and shut up. Telling someone to go read some more books, maybe you should tell Sharon to ease off instead of me. Thanks for understanding. --Jpatt 22:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
I was polite the first time, but since you have not returned that courtesy, I must repeat it, sans good faith. You, are not merely creating a belligerent environment, but also defending your actions in creating that environment. Given that you literally warned another user of their [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CraigF2&curid=123273&diff=1006345&oldid=1006332 snarky and inappropriate comments[, I cannot imagine you are responding in good faith. I therefore repeat: Use common courtesy, when communicating with editors, or about them.

Note: I am aware of your prolonged attacks against that "USA" wiki, and while your actions are quite indefensible, I have restrained from speaking about it. Clearly you couldn't afford Sharon that same respect though..brenden 21:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

Trolling redacted. Good luck with your bizarro world talk. I see Matty took your advice #fail --Jpatt 22:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
I see you are still steamed. Get over it.--Jpatt 17:38, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
So you saw my comments on that place?brenden 17:40, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
Never heard of it.--Jpatt 17:43, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
oh.brenden 17:47, 27 September 2012 (EDT)

"Fluff"

J-the edits I made removed fluff and apologies, and removed duplicate material to make a stronger argument. I would really like to see where you think I softened the criticism: what specific passages do you object to? MattyD 12:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Find another page :) --Jpatt 13:00, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

Hey! New user, hoping to contribute usefully

Hey, Jpatt, I just found Conservapedia and am eager to jump in and help contribute any way I can. Are there any articles that need cleaning/proofing/citing or anything else I could help out with?

Blessings of the Almighty on you :) JGrant 23:06, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Thanks a million. My page has a list of items I haven't touched in some time if you feel so inclined. What brought you here if I may ask? --Jpatt 23:54, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
I actually heard about both this site and another from a middle-ideology news site that promoted you as "conservative kooks" and the other website (can't remember the name, started with an R, I think) as "liberal morons." I checked them both out, found I agreed with you guys on many theological points and with the other guys on a lot of scientific ones. Got kicked off of their site for being too religious and noting how they treated Christianity unfairly, so I decided to see how tolerant you are over here. So far, looks promising. :) JGrant 07:49, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
Also (sorry for double-post), would it be alright for me to note Revelations 20:13 on the Salvation page? I note that it makes no mention of it, despite the verse pretty clearly referring to the possibility of salvation through works at the End of Days. JGrant 07:51, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Apology

Greetings. You may recall, from our email communication a while back, that there was an activity that we both agreed would be unethical, and that I said that I was fairly sure I had never done it. Looking over everything carefully, I see that I did do it one one occasion. I'm not going to call attention to it. I'm sorry, and I won't do it again. SamHB 19:58, 8 November 2012 (EST)

No apology necessary. Thanks for being considerate. --Jpatt 20:17, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Blogs

I see that you re-added the external link to Bert's blog. I personally do not think that the blog is among the top external sources available to CP readers. But if you disagree, I certainly won't get into an edit war with you over it. In general, I feel that CP editors should not link to their own blogs, because this is typically a disservice to our readers and hurts CP's reputation. Thanks, Wschact 12:11, 22 November 2012 (EST)

I somewhat can agree with your position. I would prefer that links to blogs would not make it to the frontpage. Spamming pages with links to blogs is unacceptable as well. Here and there links are ok in my Op.--Jpatt 13:16, 22 November 2012 (EST)

A serious Biblical matter

Aschlafly wrote the essay Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space (Epistle to the Hebrews). First he wrote:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

User:Iduan toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--AugustO 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

Since translation efforts have been limited to a handful of people over the centuries, I have an open mind to explore it from a different angle. I stand with what the Church dictates so I am not going to give the new insight any backing. --Jpatt 22:38, 25 November 2012 (EST)
Thank you for your straightforward answer. --AugustO 02:55, 26 November 2012 (EST)

Note

I added two new requests to Conservapedia:Image upload requests. Thanks. --Qw, 26 November 2012

Hello! Rule against citation needed tag?

Hi :) Just wanted to ask, is there a rule against putting the "citation needed" tag on this website? I noticed that I few of my edits where I added it have been rolled back. Is there a rule regarding citation needed that I'm not aware of? Please let me know, as I only wish to be a positive influence on the site. KatieKomori 20:02, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Personal tools