View source for User talk:JamesWilson/Archive 5

== Question ==

I was wondering why the name RustyRazor was blocked? It said it was a silly name, it's just the name of a band I admire. I didn't think that would be offensive to anyone. [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 13:12, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:It is rather silly and anti-intellectual, and I think common sense dictates with that sort of thing. It's the problem that Wikipedia has, people running around with frivolous user names of that sort. I'm not sure what current policy is after the recent developments, but the site historically prefers real names.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:20, 23 November 2011 (EST)
::...Oh, I'm sorry, this isn't my real name. This is a hero of mine from history, a spy from the Revolutionary War. Should I change it? [[User:EnochCrosby|EnochCrosby]] 13:27, 23 November 2011 (EST)
:::I figured that. However, several users have real-like names, and as far as I know it shouldn't be a problem. If you need a name change, you can contact [[User talk:Aschlafly|Mr. Schlafly]].--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:53, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Rollback ==

Congratulations, your account has been upgraded to include "rollback"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 23 December 2011 (EST)
:Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:33, 23 December 2011 (EST)

== Crocodile page edits == 

Hi JamesWilson. I was wondering why you reversed my edit on the crocodile page. Some of the info I deleted was incorrect or only partly correct and needed furthher detail. I was going to re-add the behaviour section with the correct data.

Thanks,
Adam

P.S. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, still not quite used to using wikis yet.
:Sorry! I thought you were simply removing information. Take it back out if it is incorrect; I must admit that animal biology isn't my forte!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:10, 3 January 2012 (EST)

== [[Video Games]] ==

What was wrong with my edits? I showed that there were games that did not make you obese and that video games aren't only targeted at teenagers (see my [[Talk:Video game]] post). [[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]]
:They were major edits made without consensus to a somewhat controversial article. Video games are largely targeted at teenage boys, no? That set aside, it is generally not accepted to make a major revision to that sort of page without discussion first. Plus, your post only notes the amount of "E" rated games. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:24, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:: Shouldn't all the controversial content be moved to [[video game controversy]]? There should be a more general talk about video games then having 3/4 of the article being about how violent and horrible video games are. [[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]]
::: The article is making points about how video games affect our society. This is not [[Wikipedia]]; the site makes a stance, and that stance is showing how video games affect our society. It gives a general overview of criticism of video games, and the other article adds on it.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:41, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Ok. You're right. So glad you're nicer then the users on Wikipedia. [[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]]
::::: OK. Please feel free to discuss any meaningful changes to the article. I guess I should make you aware of the [[90/10 rule]]. It is a concept unique to Conservapedia that a user's edits should not be 10% article edits and 90% talk, talk, talk. I won't ban you for it, as you are discussing meaningful changes to the article at hand, but be aware another user may do so. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:52, 5 January 2012 (EST)

== Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

Hello James Wilson. I've seen you reverted my edit to biblical scientific foreknowledge. May I inquire why? The prohibition of incest in Levitikus guided western societies laws for centuries. Long before there was any scientific evidence on the risk and mechanisms of inbreeding. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and before them the Canon Law all composed their marriage impediments largely on this passage. The Bible knew what was right and wrong, long before science could explain it.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 13:30, 6 January 2012 (EST)
:I don't see the value of "incest" in the article.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:34, 6 January 2012 (EST)
:: Well, I'm currently reading about marriage in the Rfeormation and these passages were pretty important. It was always argued, that incest was against God's will and was thus prohibited. Nowadays it is known that incest leads to inbreeding.<br />I would argue that value of "incest" in the article is pretty similar with the value of "homosexuality", wgich uses pretty much the same argumentation as I did. Maybe you'll reconsider. I personally find this to be a very interesting foreknowledge of the bible.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 09:21, 7 January 2012 (EST)
::: Feel free to put it back in.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:33, 7 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Thank you very much. I will. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 09:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

== Lamar Smith ==

So I'm curious. If you look at his voting record it puts him as one of the more conservative Republicans in Congress. If writing/supporting this bill is the only "liberal" thing that he's done is it enough to make him a rino? Is any Republican who supported this bill now a rino? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 07:59, 19 January 2012 (EST)

Yeah, he has a 100% rating from the NRLC and he's opposed to drugs, homosexuality and liberal bias in the media. He votes with the GOP 94% of the time. Unless Conservapedia subscribes to the "1 drop rule," where even one drop of liberalism in your veins makes you an Obama loving hippie communist, I don't see how Smith fits any definition of the word liberal. I think that people on this site tend to just throw the word liberal around as an insult, labeling anything they don't like at the time. That's how Rick Santorum could suddenly become, on this site and this site only, a supporter of abortion, simply for supporting his party's incumbent in an election.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 09:34, 19 January 2012 (EST)

:A Representative who supports internet censorship akin to that found in the People's Republic of China is most certainly not a true conservative; only liberals support suppression of information. Just because he has some less liberal positions on some issues does not mean he is not a RINO for supporting censorship of the internet. Lamar and his buddies could shut down ''Conservapedia'' if they wanted to with this law. So, Rachel, do you support the suppression of freedom of speech on the internet?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 22:20, 19 January 2012 (EST)

::Can you give me a concrete definition of RINO, other than "a Republican who supported SOPA?" That's circular reasoning if you're using that to prove that Smith is a RINO. It's not that he has "some less liberal positions," he has almost no liberal positions at all, as evidenced by his high ratings from conservative organizations and from simply looking at his voting record. People just use the word RINO to smear people on their own side that they don't want to be associated with. It's the No True Scotsman fallacy in action. As I said before, if you believe that Lamar Smith has liberal viewpoints, by all means post the specific info on the article. You'll paint a much more accurate picture of his liberal tendencies than just calling him a name. The word RINO is an insult and it does not belong in "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia."[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 00:17, 20 January 2012 (EST)


:::Rachel, first of all, you didn't answer my question. Lamar Smith is a RINO because he abandoned conservative principles; in my opinion he is no better than Zhu Entao, who beefed up internet censorship in China. His high ratings from conservative organizations mean virtually nothing as they are corrupted by the [[lamestream media]]; I'm sure they would give RINO [[John McCain]] (who supported a bill that allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial) high ratings as well. A RINO is a person who either is a liberal Republican at the start, or becomes one in the process, which many Republican congressmen, including Lamar Smith, do.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 07:06, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:Support (and opposition) has ranged the full political spectrum from conservative to liberal. Saying a man with Smith's record is a "RINO" because of his stance on this one issue is silly. And I say this as someone who is opposed to the bill. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 01:06, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:You get into murky water if you want to say supporting SOPA makes one a RINO. [[Marco Rubio]] supported SOPA/PIPA up until the night of the 18th after receiving a huge number of phone calls at his office. Is he a RINO? I find it hard to believe considering his status within the Conservative movement. The reality is that this/these bill(s) had wide support/opposition from the whole range of the political compass and trying to group everyone is pointless. But if you insist we can chance Rubio's page to reflect his newfound RINO status. I also have some frustration with your statement that "only liberals support suppression of information". But that's another story and is irrelevant here. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 08:19, 20 January 2012 (EST)
::Ayzmo, SOPA and PIPA are liberal bills; PIPA is supported by liberal [[Harry Reid]]. Liberal elites are interested that the American people will have to rely on the [[lamestream media]] for information and thus are attempting to censor the internet. Did you know that the government could arrest kids who use copyrighted music in silly videos placed in YouTube for five years, on charges of "copyright infringement"? Does that gross violation sound like conservative principles in action to you? You everyday average Joe isn't going to know the copyright law and may use some material on their blog, and BAM: prison time for petty "violations" of copyright. This bill will do nothing about illegal downaloads of music; it's a censorship bill to create the "United States Great Firewall" and we will only hear Pro-Obama sentiments after its passing. It's censorship through and through, and you can support your buddy '''LAME'''-ar if you so desire.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 10:07, 20 January 2012 (EST)
::::Ayzmo, it appears as though Mr. Wilson agrees that Marco Rubio, as well as the other sponsors, are RINOs. Would you like to proceed with the additions to their articles? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:39, 20 January 2012 (EST)
:::Nobody here likes the content of these bills, the problem is again that your only criteria for labeling Smith a RINO is that he did something that you don't like and you no longer want to be associated with him. Believe me, I understand and agree, but the man is not a liberal in ANY sense of the word. He is a republican, and you have to accept that even conservative republicans can make bad choices and be misguided. SOPA and PIPA are two different bills in two completely different chambers of Congress, and the republican party cannot hide behind Harry Reid and blame him for this. Nobody forced Lamar Smith to write SOPA, nobody forced all of those republicans and democrats in the house to stupidly support it, and now that the American People are good and mad about it, it is highly unlikely that either bill will become a law.

:::PS: you do understand that this issue is not a liberal/conservative issue. As many people on this site have pointed out, both support and opposition to SOPA and PIPA are well represented in both parties. Big Money is a far more powerful motivator in politics than liberalism or conservatism, and that's what this is about. Copyright holders have the money, Harry Reid and Lamar Smith gave them what they wanted, and until the American People spoke out, most of congress was going to go along with it. It's a sad sad situation.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 12:03, 20 January 2012 (EST)

James, when one takes a political test it is commonly, nowadays, split into two axes. One is based on personal freedoms and the other is based on economic freedoms. You can look for yourself if you want but on every test "liberal" has a higher personal freedom quotient and a lower economic freedom quotient. This is actually the first time that I've seen someone argue the other direction so I'm not sure how to go from here other than to point out that you're in a small minority if you believe that. I would have to point you such realities that the "liberal" ACLU is devoted almost entirely to fighting for free speech even when it goes against "liberal" causes or that it is Republicans who are for legislating against personal activities(same-sex marriage, homosexuality in general, drugs, etc.) which are without a doubt restrictions on personal freedoms. I'd consider myself a [[libertarian]] so my view on social issues is vastly different from yours, much closer to Ron Paul, who holds liberal social positions(high personal freedom) but conservative economic positions(high economic freedom). [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:15, 20 January 2012 (EST)

A reply to all: Ayzmo, the ACLU is a liberal organization seeking to censor conservatives with [[political correctness]]; don't kid yourself thinking they champion freedom of speech. Libertarianism is basically still liberalism; they support abortions, gay rights, medical marijuana, anything, really. Very little separates them from [[anarchist]]s. Ron Paul is about as viable of a candidate as [[Stephen Colbert]] in this election, I'm afraid. 

Rachel, the American people doubted [[ObamaCare]] would become a law, but it did. One of the worst laws since the New Deal, yes? SOPA can and most likely will become a law; liberals have no concern over what the American people want, and they most certainly don't want censorship of the internet. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:56, 20 January 2012 (EST)

You are correct, liberals most certainly don't want censorship of the net, which is why support for both of these bills on both sides of the aisle is rapidly falling away. But hey, if after a statement of opposition from the president you still believe that the law will be passed and signed, then by all means continue to believe that. When it is vetoed, assuming the bills don't die on the floor of Congress, I have a strong feeling that you will find a way to make Obama look like the bad guy then too. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:03, 20 January 2012 (EST)

We will have to see how this turns out.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:12, 20 January 2012 (EST)

And if you're right, we will both have lots to add to the Obama article, about how he misled people into thinking he opposed SOPA/PIPA. For his own sake, Obama better not screw us all over when this is done. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 20:35, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== RachelW ==

Re-blocking is one thing Increasing the block from a day to a month for absolutely no reason is is mean, unwarranted, petty and vindictive. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:06, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Note the user's contributions and how most of them have been all talk with little to no substance.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:09, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Well, she certainly won't be able to contribute anything of "substance" with an arbitrary and unwarranted extra 29 days added to a 1-day-long block, will she? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:11, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, but she will have to contribute something of substance. Perhaps she could expand the [[cat]] article?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:12, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::Or the [[goat]] article, perhaps? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:21, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::It does look like it could be beefed up a bit.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:30, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::I find it interesting that debate is automatically classed as "non-substance," as though trying to improve the quality and fairness of articles is a worthless endeavor. It isn't as though I've been chit-chatting about clothes and Lady Gaga on people's talk pages, I have been in serious discussions about what is and is not appropriate for inclusion under the very clear rules that this site has. It just so happens that when I joined, there were several patently ridiculous things happening at once, and I stand by every word I said to repudiate those things. I know of no other collaborative site that penalizes users for serious discussion about the content of the site. 

PS: James, what is your opinion on the "open marriage" issue? After all, RobS wants to use the original definition of open marriage, that of one where both partners are free to pursue careers and outside friendships, sexual or not, without hiding it from the other partner. Under that definition, we'd have a lot of people's articles to edit, because that kind of relationship is pretty much the norm nowadays, minus the infidelity.

If you use the definition of open marriage that everyone else has been using, the one that Newt Gingrich is quite angry about having to deal with, where both partners have explicit permission to cheat, then isn't it clearly irresponsible for RobS to include that claim? Or do you think we should add information to Hillary Clinton's article basically saying that she gave her explicit, freely consented blessing to Bill's infidelities? Because all of Rob's sources said the opposite, that she knew about some of them but hated him for it and tried to ignore it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:30, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Rachel, you seem to have a hankering to talk. However, it is noted that Rob's definition does seem a bit faulty, as well as his definition of "orphan". It seems a frivolous and fruitless discussion from the start, and should cease. I think that the articles should '''not''' add the "information".--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Then, I will remove the open marriage claim from the page, and I hope you will back me up when somebody inevitably puts it back.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:39, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::Then could you please remove the "orphan" information from the [[Newt Gingrich]] article which is locked?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:48, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Hey, just a pointer... ==

When you block parodists, don't give them a joke, or parting shot. They may use that as justification for attacking us. Thanks,
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 23:02, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:No, they attack us because they disagree with their stances. These jokes help show them their stupidity in attacking the site in the first place. And I'm not the only one who uses them.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)