User talk:Wschact

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Wschact, 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, Wschact!


AnupamTalk 11:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

Contents

Another welcome

I apologize for my over-hasty block. --Ed Poor Talk 14:50, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

Paralympics

Shouldn't the article about the Paralympics actually be about the Paralympics? As you now have it written, 1/3 of the total article is about Wikipedia and some contest they ran. Who cares? I would think that people reading about the Paralympics are interested in the Games and the athletes, not Wikipedia. I get that you have an axe to grind about Wikipedia, but could you not do it in the Wikipedia articles? SharonW 13:50, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

welcoming users

You really are on autopilot aren't you :-|brenden 21:54, 30 August 2012 (EDT)

Filter corrected

The spam filter has been updated, so you can restore the colors to the Richard Lenski entry's table if you'd like to.--Andy Schlafly 10:31, 23 November 2012 (EST)

Bricklaying

Didn't mean to sound rude. It's a family joke. It's what the kids said when some idiot school "friend" boasted about their family fortune. "And he's home every night" was the killer ending. AlanE 00:27, 15 February 2013 (EST)

CarmonBagw

We have seen those spammers before. They are not in good faith. --brenden 12:42, 29 December 2012 (EST)

Obama's religion

I just changed that sentence and you feel necessary to rewrite, why?--Jpatt 23:03, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Rules, Ryan and Republicans

If you're really interested in some inside baseball, here's a good link describing the Rules change from Dems to Repubs in the House. It seems the whole House version of the budget resolution is a rubber stamp of Paul Ryan's judgement. Here's my view: This is emblamatic of the Republicans problems today. Unlike in the Reagan era when Republican legislators had a strong contingent of people with economic and business backgrounds (Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, John Kasich, Dick Armey, Bob Kasten, for example), today all they have is Ryan. That leaves them at the mercy of one man's judgement on the budget. OscarO 13:19, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Looks like you've already started on this, want to make a joint project out of bringing the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page up to date and making it more presentable? Let me know... Fnarrow 10:39, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Sounds like a plan, I had never really given that page much notice until I saw your edits on the recent changes page. An example of the sort of change I feel should be made: as I started reading it from the top down, I noticed that the section on abortion states that Wikipeia's entry on Benazir Bhutto mentions all aspects of her life, with the exception of her work with the UN on abortion. However, there is actually a full section praising her pro-life advocacy in the face of constant opposition from her fellow politicians both in her own country and abroad. Also, there is an explicit mention of her work at the International Conference on Population and Development which became the steering document for the United Nations' official stance on abortion among other things. Therefore, I would remove this example as it is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, but merely a misstatement of the facts.
In many cases, there was a fair criticism at one time, but it was fixed. Some Wikipedia editors read these pages regularly, so they fix things that we report. One solution is to make a footnote to the permalink of the version of the page that had the problem. If you can identify how long the problem existed, then add it to the item. "For two years, the X page did not metion Y, but this bias has since been removed." Or "After a protracted edit war, page X was changed to acknowledge this fact." Thanks, Wschact 01:02, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Nuclear edits

I was just trying to get the article consistent with what Aschlafly has revealed about the false equation of E=mc2. Why did you undo it? EddyJ 22:48, 23 September 2013 (EDT)

Good typo correction

Thanks for your correction to the typo in Essay:Best New Conservative Words!--Andy Schlafly 10:27, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

Obamacare footnotes

Thanks for adding the table to Obamacare. It looks like you left what may have been footnotes in the original source. Perhaps you would like to include them as well in the article. GregG 22:54, 5 April 2014 (EDT)

Done! Wschact 12:42, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Project

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 21:57, 25 December 2014 (EST)

Should I protect the article now?

Should I protect the article Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages now? Are you finished working on it? Or do you need more time? If you need more time, when should I protect it? Conservative 10:35, 6 January 2015 (EST) Please protect it now. I am finished, and have spent the day on Capitol Hill visiting with the new Congress. Thanks, Wschact 16:16, 6 January 2015 (EST)

The Liberals smear campaign Won -- I now retire from editing Conservapedia

I must say that the liberal smear campaign and relentless edits/deletions from 5 very loud CP liberal trolls / RINOs (besides the vociferous User:Wschact, you know who you are and will be happy to know you have won) has been no fun. I am sad to say, it is much worse edit wars and liberal reverts than anything I contributed over the years to Wikipedia. Sorry User:Aschlafly, User:Conservative, User:Karajou and User:Jpatt, but I have lost the enthusiasm to continue contributing to CP in the face of this much liberal opposition. Thank you 4 for what you do for the conservative movement. I strongly suspect that the frequent sock puppet hacker-vandalist accounts were User:Wschact or one his friends using a VPN since all the vandals edits were directed to things he was revert warring with me over. God bless. TheAmericanRedoubt 02:26, 9 January 2015 (EST)

User:Wschact's Stubborn Hounding: 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work out of 179 edits, 129 concern my edits

Between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

I didn't really want to put this part about Wschact on CP Talk pages or Community Portal since I don't want to further alienate him from me or make him more dogged in his pursuit of editing/patrolling/trolling my contributions. But his recent remarks to my "Retirement" posting, made me decide to mention these 72% statistics and to come out of "retirement". TheAmericanRedoubt 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Inspired by Karajou and User:Conservative to Not Retire due to User:Wschact' Dogged Hounding

Dear Admins Karajou and Conservative

My biggest concern, that finally temporarily "took the wind out of my sails" and prompted me to temporarily retire as a contributor, is Wschact, who makes my Conservapedia contributions the subject of 72% of his edits over a 24 day period, as I will show below.

My biggest concern isn't SamHB who explained himself well here:http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SamHB#.22Troll.22_Editing_by_User:SamHB_of_Numerous_articles_I_am_Working_on_.2F_Editing_.2F_Contributing, saying that "I promised that I would revert your things only once, and I mean it."

Nor is my concern AlanE's presumptuously slanderous race baiting comment here: I first said to AlanE: "Please better to stop the "Revert War" (unless it is by an American CP administrator) and instead make comments and suggestions on this talk page for editing the material. "Free state" is a big topic in the American Conservative, Libertarian and Christian circles. The old meaning of Antebellum south is rarely used except among historians. I would be willing to move some of it to an essay, however, the majority of it matches conservative values. Please discuss in a civil way without using words like hideous, offensive, etc like User:SamHB used for the previous revert." TheAmericanRedoubt 02:57, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Alan rudely Ad hominem responded to me: "Excuse the following...but I am cross, and Sam is I know to be a reasonable and intelligent man - and a friend.... Obviously I can't win against someone who probably sits at his computer for hours on end with an assault rifle beside him with one eye out the window just hoping that some one who is black or jewish or liberal will put a foot onto his property so that he can shoot them. What larks!! (Pip old chap)). I won't go on because I see you are like those I occasionally met in the old days in Outback pubs who felt naked without their firearms and were usually relieved of their ammunition before the publican would serve them a beer. Cheers mate." AlanE 04:06, 17 December 2014 (EST)" Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Free_state I decided to simply ignore AlanE since that was the last I heard of him.

What finally temporarily took the remaining "wind out of my sails" is Wschact’s almost month-long dogged efforts: I assert that between December 16 and January 8, out of 179 edits made by Wschact, 129 concern either Wschact rapidly changing my edits soon after I complete them / reverting them or complaining to the Community/Admins about my contributions. That is to say, 72% of his edits over a period of 24 days are about my work. That is a good example of being tenaciously hounded by strong opposition. Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wschact

Here http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany#Interpretation_of_copyright_policy Wschact doesn't even know the difference between 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge/ammunition and a "7.62x51mm NATO rifle" and hence wrongly insisting that the Admins move 7.62x51mm NATO to "7.62x51mm NATO rifle". And the so-called copyright issues he brings are been handled by MLA citations/references/bibliography and fair use.

I made more than 1000+ small edits on CP for several months before contributing much of anything original to be sure that I got a feel for the actual format, content, categories, see also's, stubs or lack of stubs, politics, guidelines, etc. I also wanted to make sure that my edits proved to the CP admins that I am sincere and trustworthy, not a troll or parodist. Then in late November when my sabbatical began I begin much more extensive CP contributions. That was when on December 16 I can on the Wschact radar scope.

I was asked by one JoeyJ (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAmericanRedoubt&oldid=1130110#Orphaned_Pages) to deorphan pages which I then began to do. But the edits I make to de-ophan them by adding them appropriately to a See Also or a wiki link within the article were getting frequently deleted by Wschact. This happened a lot. He would keep saying I am violating the CP policy.

Over the next few months while I am taking a sabbatical from my work, I have a lot of time/energy/knowledge to contribute to CP generating new content. Alas, at the moment I am feeling too harassed by their constant rapid nit-picking and having to 10/90 Talk Page explain my every step versus doing 90/10 actual article work. I've never experienced this before in an online Wiki or forum community, I am sad to say. Even on Wikipedia, I would get at least a few days to a week to perfect a short article or a contribution to one before the liberal vultures would swoop in to eat it up (if they did even). Because CP is a much smaller community of editors, they give me no time to improve upon my work before they come in and revert/delete. It's truly demoralizing/intimidating for a new editor. I don't know what else to say. I feel CP is an amazing voice for our American conservative movement, but I didn't know it would have so many fast-moving critics/deleters/reverters against anything I contribute in the realm of firearms or survivalism/preparedness articles. Yet they were against much on complementary medicine and amateur radio as well.

It's funny, the ONLY contributions of mine that the liberal/RINO editors didn't touch were the Buddhist articles. I think that is because most liberals like Buddhism. Although Catholic, I formally studied comparative religions and CP's Buddhist and Hindu articles are very slim at the moment, so I have much to add there as well. But again, at the moment, I am becoming "gun shy" with their liberal/RINO sights all aimed at me now, especially on http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal.


Persistence is a virtue, as Calvin Coolidge said:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
The slogan Press On! has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Thank you for listening. Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

TheAmericanRedoubt 19:42, 9 January 2015 (EST)

Can't Improve Articles with User:Wschact on my Tail

I have been a big advocate for the representing the Prepper and Firearms RKBA point of view on CP and improve those articles here, but my Conservative point-of-view changes won't last long with User:Wschact hounding me. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:42, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Kind Advice from Conservative and Karajou and my Response - No more Survivalism-Guns-AltMed-Permaculture-HamRadio, just Indian Philosophy articles from me now

If Wschact acts unreasonably in order to protect liberal sacred cows or acts in a petty way due to you adding conservative content that he does not like, please contact User: Karajou and/or User: JPatt. On the other hand, please be judicious about this matter. If Wschact offers useful input, please take it.

I did solve the SamHB issue for you though. Should SamHB return, I suspect he will be far less truculent due to it being pointed out that masses of people are leaving his unfree state of Massachusetts each year. Obviously, people leave a sinking unfree ship of state and not a successful freedom loving flagship state. Conservative 03:20, 11 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, don't ever get frustrated and quit. Stand your ground and if necessary call in the cavalry of Karajou and Jpatt. :) Conservative 03:26, 11 January 2015 (EST)
I reopened my user talk page mailbox. However, please please contact Karajou/Jpatt first as they may be more active than me at CP in the foreseeable future. I did make some promises to people to assist them with off wiki projects so Karajou/JPatt may act more quickly for you. Conservative 03:36, 11 January 2015 (EST)
Sorry fellow Conservatives, but Wschact (and all the really vociferous "libs"/RINOS here) finally won with their bullying. Washact and the five others, but especially Washact, have tired me out, calling me a parodist, a hijacker, etc, etc. The 'only' thing Wshact didn't immediately edit are my Buddhist and Indian philosophy article contributions Category:Indian Philosophy and Category:Buddhism. It's simply too much of an uphill battle here with these loud-mouthed five, especially wshact. It's just too demoralizing even for an energetic contributor like me. As long as he is hounding me on 'every' edit and template, it's just not worth it to me.
I can contribute my time and high energy elsewhere for the Conservative cause, where there is a slightly longer "pérennité" (as the French say) / durability to my contributions. I am sad to say my similar veined edits actually stayed visible on Wikipedia much longer before the vultures swooped in than they did here. At least over at Wikipedia I can contribute complementary medicine/herbology material without having it immediately deleted/reverted. Numerous items I contributed at Wikipedia lasted sometimes for weeks at a time, not just a few minutes or hours before deletion/reverting. And they usually put up a top of the page Admin template flag on it first for a couple days to weeks rather than just remove/revert it instantly like weshact is doing.
I think I will return back to the Conservative/Preparedness Forums from which I came. From now on you will only see on CP the occasional Buddhist, Hindu, Indian philosophy article I may perhaps continue to contribute since Comparative Religions/Philosophy was one of my past formal study areas in college.
I sent you Karajou and User:Conservative a private e-mail about it.
Be strong. Be of good courage. God bless America. Long live the Republic.

TheAmericanRedoubt 05:50, 11 January 2015 (EST)


This template Template:Second Amendment topics and it's Backup User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Second Amendment topics is my last contribution for the Second Amendment-RKBA-Firearms-Survivalism-Prepping. It says it all. TheAmericanRedoubt 06:21, 11 January 2015 (EST) {{User:TheAmericanRedoubt/Second Amendment topics}}


An important request

TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) creates a lot of content and his work is appreciated by the Admin community and has their full support. Wschact your content is appreciated also.

Second, I contacted TAR about various matters such as: not creating additional ayurvedic medicine articles at this time, avoiding creating large "see also" sections, avoiding creating a lot of red links (AlanE was irked by this), and not creating a lot of stub articles. TAR agreed to do all these things.

Third, Karajou, JPatt and I feel you are hounding TAR. This must stop. Please cease and desist doing this immediately. It is also suspected that you may have others using your account to help you hound TAR. If true, this is unacceptable.

Fourth, considering that TAR has agreed to not create additional ayurvedic medicine articles which seems to have been the spark to start this wiki war, you need to meet him half way and stop hounding him. If you don't Karajou, JPatt and I will consult with the owner of CP and make sure that you do stop hounding him.

Again, your content is appreciated and so is your input. Nonetheless, your behavior towards TAR must stop. It is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Conservative 09:36, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Who is hounding whom?
15:27, 11 January 2015 TheAmericanRedoubt (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Wschact (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
--AugustO 14:24, 11 January 2015 (EST)

resolving things with TheAmericanRedoubt

If the AmericanRedoubt obtained a microphone for his computer, would you be willing to Skype him? You can create a separate Skype account if you prefer to not to use a main Skype account that you may use.

Often verbal communication is a far more easier and effective way to communicate and resolve things. And TheAmericanRedoubt is a nice person. I spoke to him on the phone. Text communication is more difficult to communicate and sometimes results in flame wars. And Skype is an extremely secure method of communication. Conservative 20:42, 11 January 2015 (EST)

I am open minded, but what would be the agenda of the call? (If not Skype, I also have a long-distance conference call bridge.) Thanks, Wschact 20:46, 11 January 2015 (EST)
I take this as a yes. You appear to want to resolve your dispute with him and the agenda would be to resolve things. Please email me a Skype name to conservativeconservapediaATgmailDOTcom You can create a new email address if you wish. I will relay this Skype name to TAR. Conservative 20:53, 11 January 2015 (EST)
On second thought, I don't think a Skype call is necessary. TAR has agree to go with my advice in terms of editing. If necessary, a Skype text call can be arranged to resolve matters as TAR does not have a microphone. Conservative 22:15, 11 January 2015 (EST)

re: encyclopedic works

Wschact, your "mountain man"/"outside my expertise"/"I'll have to step away from the project" comment that you posted in the community portal in this section is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias are broad based reference works. They don't solely cover urban living for example and can cover such topics as eskimos, Middle Eastern and African nomadic life, Australian aboriginal life, anarchy in Somalia, etc. If we wanted a project which solely covered your expertise such as law and social order in first world countries or the electric industry, it would stop being an encyclopedia.

If someone wants to create a wiki called UrbanWhiteLiberalElitePedia.org, I have no problem with that, but it will not be a very encyclopedic work. Conservative 17:31, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Temporary 7 Day Ban: WShact again removing Conservative POV material from Survival/Firearm Related Articles

Dear User:Jpatt and User:Karajou, I would appreciate your help on addressing Wshact issue again this since User:Conservative told me to talk to you since he is temporarily busy on off-Wiki related business. Thank you again.

Instead of contributing new material, I again have had to spend significant time restoring the diverse conservative point of view topics/materials that WShact continues to remove/delete/subtly edit out from Category:Survivalism and firearms, Second Amendment related articles. The Survival Blog articles in particular took 30 minutes to restore material deleted by Wshact from his numerous small edits (so they couldn't be easily reverted). I had to spend time removing Wshact's biased (and improperly formatted resulting in a reference error) source/ref from a biased competing commercial website rather than unbiased actual Alexa site reference. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:The_Survival_Blog#WShact_again_removing_Conservative_POV_material_from_Survival.2FFirearm_Related_Articles TheAmericanRedoubt 06:47, 13 January 2015 (EST)

In re-reviewing Wschact's continued harassment of Survivalism-Prepper-Firearms articles under the guise of making lots of small improvements to the article (which cannot be easily reverted). I realized Wshact, under the guise of reorganizing the article and putting it in the active voice instead of passive voice, has again deleted significant conservative point of view content. It was to hard to continue trying to restore the vandalized article. Thus I had to restore my original version of the article.

Dealing with this whole affair of continued harassment has just cost me 1 hour of my time that I had budgeted to spend contributing new firearms content.

In response to Wshact's continued harassment despite repeated warnings, I am temporarily banning him for 7 days. Admins who have been involved in correcting Wshact's aggressive behavior, please correct the ban time if appropriate. TheAmericanRedoubt 07:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Wschact Banned Again (14 Days) for Continued Biased Targeting of Conservative POV Survivalism Articles

See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Robert_Richardson#Wschact_Again_Biased_Targeting_Survivalism_Articles

Thankfully, User:Conservative just wisely re-blocked Wschact for another 2 weeks for "interferring with good faith content creator while having the template "retired" on user page and not creating significant content". This was just 3 edits after Wsacht came out of 1 week in "The Cooler for ignoring the continued advice of the Admins regarding his behavior. TheAmericanRedoubt 15:45, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Comments from Others

Personal tools