Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ravenna

DLerner — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 01:08:18 GMT

DLerner:

'''Ravenna''' is a city and commune in the Emilia-Romagna region of [[Italy]]. It rose to power in the 1st century BC under the Emperor [[Augustus]]. The Roman emperor built a port and naval base at nearby Classe, which is currently undergoing archaeological excavation [http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/ravenna]. Ravenna was the capital city of the [[Western Roman Empire]] from 402 AD until 476 AD (V century); the capital of the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy (476-540), and later the seat of [[Byzantine]] government in Italy.

<blockquote>
A little journey outside Ravenna to the church of Sant' Apollinare in Classe will enable the student to bring his study of early mosaic work and earlier sculpture down to a still later period, as in that church there is the great mosaic erected by Archbishop Reparatus c. 671, the curved throne of St. Damianus (668-705), and the sarcophagi of various archbishops, extending in date to the end of the seventh century, and bearing religious emblems of very considerable importance. <ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05248a.htm Ecclesiastical Art]</ref>
</blockquote>

[[File:Ravenne Sant Apollinare in Classe La nef centrale VIe siecle.jpg|center]]
<center>
The Basilica of Sant'Apollinare is dedicated to St. Apollinaris, patron saint of Ravenna.
</center>

== See also ==

*[[Roman Empire]]
*[[Architecture]]
*[[Peter Chrysologus]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Italian Cities and Towns]]

Talk:Batman (film, 1989)

DLerner — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:58:49 GMT

DLerner: Title suggestion

==Title==
Shouldn't the title be '''Batman (1989 film)''' [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 15:58, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Freedom From Religion Foundation

DLerner — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:12:58 GMT

DLerner: /* Wisconsin and Washington State Capitol signs */ thumbed image makes page more aesthetic imho

The '''Freedom From Religion Foundation''' is an [[American]] [[atheist]]/[[humanist]] organization in Madison, [[Wisconsin]]. Its purpose is to promote "freethought," meaning a focus on [[science]] and [[logic]] rather than [[dogma]] and tradition. However, the Foundation downplays the achievements of [[religion]] in order to push this point.

The Foundation publishes a [[newspaper]] called ''Freethought Today'', broadcasts Freethought Radio (also carried on [[Air America]]), engages in litigation (it has lost nearly double the number of cases it has won) and sponsors and hosts other activities to educate the public about atheism, humanism, and "freethought."

==The name of the Foundation==
The Constitution guarantees us rights to free exercise, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. The name of the Foundation, "Freedom ''From'' Religion Foundation," does not reflect a Constitutional right. For example, no one has freedom ''from'' speech; likewise, the idea of freedom ''from'' religion is fallacious.

==Misleading information on website==

The "Our Purposes" page on the Freedom From Religion Foundation website <ref>http://ffrf.org/purposes/</ref> contains several incorrect or misleading statements. The statements, along with rebuttals, follow.

"The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion."

*Actually, Western civilization is built upon the Judeo-Christian ethic and the accomplishments of ancient Greece and Rome. The great Greek philosophers ([[Socrates]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]]) all believed in the existence of a supreme being, even Aristotle, who was a [[deist]]. Social and moral accomplishments have actually been made almost solely by religious people. The great scientists [[Galileo]], [[Kepler]], [[Isaac Newton|Newton]], and [[Louis Pasteur|Pasteur]], were all devout Christians. The great artists such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and other Renaissance artists were motivated by Christianity. It was the Christian monasteries which preserved the ancient learning, and Christian orders such as the Jesuits which served as educators. The founders of America, especially [[George Washington]], were either deist or Christian.

"In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for '''death with dignity for the terminally ill''', and for the right to choose '''contraception, sterilization and abortion''' have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery."

*The bolded "accomplishments" are not accomplishments at all. In America, abolitionists and early feminists were largely Christian. The early feminists such as [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]] and Susan B. Anthony were pro-life. In Britain, the anti-slavery activists were mostly deist or Christian.

There is a reference to the religious right "...attacking our secular public schools."

*The public schools were not secular until 1963, when not the people but the Supreme Court banned school prayer. Since then, education quality has suffered, and fewer notable people have used the public school system.

"Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary."

*America was built upon the [[Mayflower Compact]] which began with the words "In the name of God, Amen," and the [[Declaration of Independence]], which acknowledges [[God]] as the source of rights and freedom. The Constitution is not "godless" but secular, and its only reference to relgion is to say that the state shall not ''interfere'' with relgious practice.

"It [The Constitution] is vital to buttress the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" which has served our nation so well."

*The "Jeffersonian 'wall of separation between church and state'" is not in the US Constitution at all! In fact, it was written in a letter by Jefferson ''over ten years after the First Amendment was ratified'', and furthermore, Jefferson was the least religious of all the early Presidents. Jefferson himself played no role in the formation of the Constitution. A better guiding principle is that expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

==Wisconsin and Washington State Capitol signs==
[[Image:SigninCapitol.png|right|thumb|350px]]
In the mid-1990s, the Foundation began displaying a sign at the Wisconsin State Capitol during the Christmas season. It reads:

{{cquote|At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.}}

In fact, the great figures of history have been religious, and charitable giving by theists is significantly higher than giving by atheists, even when church giving is excluded.<ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians</ref><ref>http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians</ref>

In response to the display of a nativity scene at the Washington State Capitol, the Foundation placed an identical sign there as well.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html</ref>

==Billboard and bus sign campaigns==
In many cities across the nation, the FFRF has sponsored the display of anti-Christian billboards. Some of the slogans on these billboards include:

*"Beware of Dogma"<ref>http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2009/jan/10/atheist-organization-lands-billboard-nlr-20090110/</ref>
*"Imagine No Religion"<ref>http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/living/123199170457020.xml&coll=7</ref>
*"Praise Darwin. Evolve Beyond Belief."<ref>http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/435401</ref>
*"Don't believe in God? You are not alone."<ref>http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A63903</ref>

In late 2008, the FFRF began sponsoring the display of anti-Christian signs on and in Madison, Wisconsin, buses. These signs included quotations from famous atheists like Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain and Richard Dawkins.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2009/02/25/new_anti-religion_ad.php</ref> This sign campaign was inspired by a similar campaign begun in Europe.

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Organizations]][[Category:Atheism]]

Debate:Is it Logical to be a Theist?

DLerner — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:03 GMT

DLerner: /* No */

==Yes==

==No==
Given the fact that there are countless religions in the world is it logical to value one over the other? Seething as how many Polytheistic and Monotheistic religions alike aren't believed today can it be considered logical to be a theist in any religion? --[[User:CartoonDiablo|CartoonDiablo]] 09:51, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:Religions are rarely chosen on basis of logic, but rather on basis of faith. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 11:42, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
::Or birth, most people (but not by any means all,) are members of whatever religion they were born into. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 17:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I also have to say no, religion is based on faith, so no, it's not '''logical'''. This does not disprove it though. (Love is often illogical too....) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 17:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:German Americans

DLerner — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:12:20 GMT

DLerner:

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Conservapedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}}

Did you write the article over [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/German_Americans here?] [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 16:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Silver Ring Thing

DLerner — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:10:13 GMT

DLerner: link edit

'''Silver Ring Thing''' is a US-based sexual [[abstinence]] campaign aimed at promoting pre-marital [[chastity]] amongst adolescents and young adults. Founded in 1996, and until 2006 in receipt of US Government financial support, it campaigns through rallies at which young men and women pledge to abstain from pre-marital [[sexual intercourse]]. This pledge is demonstrated by the wearing of a silver [[purity ring]].

== Further Information ==

[http://www.silverringthing.com/home.asp Silver Ring Thing's home page]

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

Skinheads

DLerner — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:08:50 GMT

DLerner: modern usag

== Definitions ==
'''Skinheads''', named after their cropped or shaven heads, are members of a working-class subculture that originated in [[Britain]] in the 1960s. They were heavily influenced by the rude boys of the West Indies and the mods of the UK.

Skinhead is a term also used to describe many neo-Nazi youth movements.

[[Category:Political Movements]]

Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?

DLerner — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:37:21 GMT

DLerner: /* No, they did not intend to establish the U.S.A. as "One nation under God" */

{{debate}}

'''NOTE - PLEASE READ THE PREMISE SECTION BEFORE POSTING REPLIES - THANK YOU.'''

==Premise==

There has been much talk on Conservapedia over Sarah Palin's comment about the phrase "One nation, under God" being in the Pledge of Allegiance. Her reply included the statement "If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me", and many have taken that to be a mistake since the Pledge of Allegiance was written about 100 years after the founding of the nation, and the phrase "under God" only added in the 1950's.

In her defense, some have pointed out references to God that were made by various founding founders, and the specific use of the phrase "under God" by George Washington, as evidence that the founders did in fact conceive of the institution of the United States as being "a nation under God". However others contend that despite the deep faith held by many of the founding fathers, they deliberately established the government of the United States of America as a secular institution, leaving faith as an individual matter and ensuring that all citizens have the freedom to practice those faiths.

This debate page is not about whether Governor Palin made a historical error or not, so please post opinions on that elsewhere. The specific question to be addressed on this page is whether or not the founding fathers intended to apply their personal faith to the nation ''' ''as an institution'' ''', to deliberately establish "a nation under God".

==Yes, they intended to establish the U.S.A. as "One nation under God"==

There were no religious detractors in that day and age, unlike today. You were either a good, God-fearing man (thus respected) or you were a nobody. Much public record exists, not only the Founding Father's religious comments as it relates to the institutions of America, but from all walks of life in that period.

''Two historians at the University of Houston did a 10-year study of the ideas that shaped our republic. They started with 15,000 documents from the Colonial era, which were boiled down to 3,154 statements. The three most quoted individuals were French philosopher Montesquieu (8.3 percent), English jurist William Blackstone (7.9 percent) and English philosopher John Locke (2.9 percent). But Biblical citations dwarfed them all. Ninety-four percent of the founding fathers quotes were based on the Bible, 34 percent directly from its pages and 60 percent from men who had used the Bible to arrive at their conclusions.''
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:20, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good reference, but the premise of the debate does not suggest that religion did not influence the ideas behind the founding of this nation. What is in question is whether the founders made religion and the concept that this is "a nation under God" part of the ''institution'' of the country itself. That's the basis of why some want the phrase "under God" reverted from the pledge of allegiance, and "in God we trust" removed from the currency. Those phrases reflect the principle that this nation was formally established under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian God, when it was not. It was founded by men who were free to pursue their religious faith without the government endorsing any religion over any other as shown below. When we incorporate references to the Judeo-Christian God in the currency and pledges to our nation we are no longer adhering to the principle of the First Amendment. We can have a secular government without it being implied as an attack on Christianity. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:04, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:: ''"formally established under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian God, when it was not."'' In your op. There are literally 100's of examples otherwise. [[Samuel Adams]] "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. From the rising to the setting of the sun may His kingdom come." [[Benjamin Franklin]], June 28, 1787. He said, "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." [[John Hancock]], president of the Continental Congress, said, "Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe." DinsdaleP, you can nitpick these all you want. The Founders were not interested in a secular society. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:13, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:: One more addition. The founding fathers expected officeholders to be Christians. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 is a perfect example. Everyone appointed to public office had to say: "I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

:Okay, two quick replies. First, I never said the founders wanted society to be secular - only the institution of the government that all of society lives under. Their intent was to create a society where each individual has the maximum freedom to practice his or her faith, and that is not a secular society. Second, this debate addressed the founding of the ''federal'' government, not the founding of any state governments. As I point out in my reply below, Article VI of the Constitution was created in part to ensure that religion would never be a test in holding Federal office. That says a lot about the founders' intent when forming the national government, regardless of their views expressed in speeches and in private. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:00, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:: ''"was founded by men who were free to pursue their religious faith without the government endorsing any religion over any other as shown below."'' It is not about endorsing any religion. It was about the right of religious faith without government interference aka Church of England. You want history to show that "Under God" wasn't meant to mean the nation was a Christian state. You want to seperate the ideas and inspirations of the Founders from the countries formation. You can disregard state constitutions of the era because it is not federal. I am trying to input that Judeo-Christianity WAS the Founder's intentions. Though, they didn't form The Church of America, they had every intention of combining scripture and government.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:17, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I appreciate the reply, jp, but this keeps going in the same circles. I ''never'' tried to separate the ideas and inspirations of the founders from the formation of the nation - when you read my comments here and in related threads, I state the opposite. However, there's a difference between the inspiration one has, and what one does once inspired. The founders never used the phrase "under God" or included Biblical scripture in the Constitution, and explicitly removed tests of faith as a prerequisite for service in the Government.
:::Did the faith of the founders inspire them? Certainly. Did their faith lead to the intention to architect a government of based on morals, fairness, tolerance and respect? I'm sure it did. Did the each of the Christian founders believe that God was the ultimate authority under who's providence this nation was founded? I'm certain that was their stated belief ''as individuals''. However, when they had the chance to formalize this acknowledgment with something as simple as a mention of God in the preamble to the Constitution, they did not. "In God we trust" was added to currency years later by others, and the Pledge of Allegiance was altered in the 1950's. The actions of later generations doesn't alter the fact the in the actual, final establishment of the U.S. government, the founders intended that government to be secular in nature because of a belief in the principle that religion may inspire good government, but should not be institutionalized in government. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, so please show me evidence of the founders making religion part of the operating framework of the U.S. government. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:36, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::::You are right, this conversation is going in circles. You want me to prove "Christianity in the Constitution" , which has none. You want me to say the Founders views were separated from legislation created, which I will not. A Republic was created not a Theocracy. I will end my last reply on a few quotes. James Wilson, George Washington's appointment says "Christianity is part of the common-law." and Supreme Court Justice appointed by President James Madison, Joseph Story called America a "Christian country." Patrick Henry, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospels of Jesus Christ." Plus, the secular government that would not infringe on the religion of others...The Continental Congress, in 1777, recommended and approved that the Committee of Commerce "import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere," because of the great need of the American people and the great shortage caused by the interruption of trade with England by the Revolutionary War.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:52, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::::First off, the resolution you refer to took place during the Continental Congress, the entity that existed before the Constitution was written and ratified, so this is not an example of the actions of the government the U.S. government founders finally agreed to. That aside, this was a committee recommendation that Congress vote on importing Bibles instead of printing them - in short, it was a committee vote to approve the next step in the approval process. Also, the whole effort was in response to price gouging of Bibles during the war, not because the Continental Congress felt it should be in the business of issuing Bibles to the citizens as policy. The committee vote on the motion was close – seven states voted yes; six voted no. A second motion was then made to pass a resolution to import the Bibles, but this was postponed and never brought up again. No Bibles were imported. Will devout Christians state that they and their fellow Americans live under God in a Christian nation? Of course, but that doesn't make it a fact, least of all to their fellow citizens and patriots who don't happen to be Christian. I still retain an open mind to being shown evidence of the actual founding, in law, of the United States of America as a Christian nation. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:55, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, I guess you can separate the Christians behind the Continental Congress from the Christians who made the Constitution. Here's one that may work in favor of my op. Isaiah 33:22 The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king. Can the constitutions' separations of powers come from this line? Judicial- Judge, Legislative- Lawgiver, Executive- King. Or is that just a case of coincidence, not meant to be taken from the bible? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:46, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::That one gives a person pause for thought, because there's certainly a parallel. What matters in the end, though, is whether principles of Judeo-Christian faith like this became part of the institution of the U.S. government itself. This last example is interesting, but exactly the opposite of how the U.S. government was designed in terms of a separation of powers. In Christianity, God is the central authority to which all are accountable. In our government, the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches are designed to be checks against abuse by any of the others. If the founders wanted to emulate the authority of God in the institution of the U.S. government, we'd have wound up with a monarchy or dictatorship where power and authority channel from a single, absolute source whose will cannot be questioned. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:05, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

==No, they did not intend to establish the U.S.A. as "One nation under God"==

Many of the founding fathers were men of faith, and you will find references to God and "the Creator" in documents written by them about the issues involved in the forming of the new nation. Did their faith shape their outlook and values, and in turn shape their statements on what the institution of a new Federal government should be like? Certainly. The Declaration of Independence includes references to God, but that profound document didn't actually establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule.

When the founding fathers met to work out the actual institution of government the new nation would be operated under, the Constitution, they deliberately chose not to assert that this nation was founded "under God" - words like "God" and "Creator" do not appear in the [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html text of the Constitution] or any of its amendments. In fact, there are only two references to religion in the Constitution at all, and the first reference is ''not'' the one most people are familiar with.

*The first reference is in Article VI, "Debts, Supremacy, Oaths". The third paragraph states "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If the founders intended to establish the U.S.A. as a nation "under God", it's hard to imagine why they deliberately chose to remove religion as a litmus test for holding a public office or trust. In theory, an atheist or even a Satanist could serve as President, because the founders felt that one's religIous beliefs (or non-belief) had no bearing on one's fitness to serve if the people electing/appointing you considered you qualified.

*The second reference is the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Some feel that this amendment simply prevents the U.S. government from ''establishing'' a religion, but these were among the most intelligent men of their time, and they used the phrase "''respecting'' an establishment" deliberately. Some of the first colonies were founded by different groups seeking religious freedom from persecution that was often institutionalized the in the governments they left behind. The Pilgrims, for example, were Christians fleeing persecution from institutions that practiced Christianity differently.

One of the main challenges the founders faced in convincing the citizens of the various colonies to cede power to a central government was to assure them that they would not be losing some of the very core freedoms they sought in founding those colonies. The intent of the founders, then, was to embrace the principle of tolerance and define the institution of the United States as a nation of people united regardless of their faith, and administered under a government that is secular in nature.

Some equate the concept of secularism to being anti-religion, but it's not. A secular government is one that's indifferent to religion, not against it. The wisdom and vision of the founding fathers with regard to religion was their realization that if you wanted to take different groups of devoutly religious people and unite them as "One Nation under God", it was best accomplished by keeping religion out of government and guaranteeing every citizen the freedom to worship God without interference as they saw fit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:03, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:It's also worth noting that the table in the Colonial History section of [[American History Lecture Two|this page]] clearly shows how several of the colonies were founded by people seeking freedom from religious persecution, where religion was institutionalized into the governments they were leaving behind. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Disregarding the massive amounts of evidence that many of the founding fathers were Deists, I'll provide actual proof with regards to their intention: Article 11 of the treaty with [[Tripoli]] ("''Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.''") '''"As the Government of the United States of America <big>is not, in any sense</big>, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammadean] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."''' {{unsigned|DLerner}}

:Well, ''that'' sure makes a statement. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:31, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::Anyone else, or did I just win the debate? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 22:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?

DLerner — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:12:04 GMT

DLerner: /* No, they did not intend to establish the U.S.A. as "One nation under God" */

Talk:Essay: Freedom of speech

DLerner — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:04:47 GMT

DLerner: /* Conservapedian "Free" Speech */

== A few thoughts ==

Hm, an interesting and thought-provoking essay, I'll give you that. However, I frowned a few times while reading it, and I genuinely hope that you can blow my concerns out of the water:

{{cquote|So, in my opinion, freedom of speech...

...gives one the right to argue that some people are inferior to others (such as racism), but does not give them to right to treat or speak of others as inferior}}

Could you maybe explain how you can argue that some races are inferior without speaking of them as inferior? I don't get this one. If anything, this sounds like a ''very'' fine semantic difference, and I'm really not sure that I'm comfortable with that.

{{cquote|
*...gives one the right to argue that swearing is acceptable, but does not give them the right to swear.
*...gives one the right to argue that offensive works of art are acceptable, but does not give artists the right to produce or display offensive art.}}

And who decides what is acceptable or offensive? What counts as swearing (this sounds silly, but depending on who you ask, you get radically different replies)? You're opening the floodgates for people like the nutcases who wanted to ban Harry Potter books.

I can see where you're coming from, but maybe you didn't think this one through all the way. Or maybe I didn't - if you can point out where I'm missing something, please do so! It's likely that you put more thought into this than I did, after all.

{{cquote|But the point is that the freedom-of-speech principle is the right ''to express (or argue) a view on something'', whether that "something" is related to speech (e.g. swearing) or not.}}

Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I admit that I struggled a bit with the wording of this, and that might go part way to explaining the problems you had with it.
::: As far as the racism bit is concerned, what I had in mind is that if someone wants to argue, for instance, that "black" people are intellectually inferior to "white" people, such as by producing the results of research into this, they should have the freedom to do so. But they should not (a) treat such people as inferior by discriminating against them, nor (b) talk about them as though it is accepted that they are inferior (e.g. "Niggers wouldn't know how to add two and two"). I'm not sure if that makes it much clearer, but if not, perhaps you could explain how you would differentiate. Would you argue that anybody can say what they like about groups they might think to be inferior, or at the other extreme, would you argue that a researcher who ''claims'' to have evidence that Negroes are inferior to non-Negroes is not even allowed to argue his case?
::: I think that the question of who decides what is acceptable or offensive is a separate question. Societies ''have'' been deciding such things for a very long time, and there are various ways that they can be decided.
::: On your last point, I'm not sure that I'm clear on your concern, but part of the answer may be what I said about struggling with the wording, and in particular my use of the word "express" (and variations). It's really the same point as saying that it's okay to argue that swearing is okay, but not not okay to swear. Artwork is not an argument (putting a case).
::: I'm open to suggestions on how I can word the essay more clearly.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:29, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

::It's an interesting essay Philip. I think the first section can be summed up this way - freedom of speech has two important accepted, historical restrictions. First, the nature of certain speech must be truthful when the consequence of falsehood can cause harm (libel, slander, falsely yelling "fire" when there is none). Second, in a society based on laws, it is acceptable to discuss or even advocate actions that are illegal to promote change, but that does not make illegal acts legal, and inciting others to commit illegal acts can't be allowed either.

::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources. I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it. Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

== Conservapedian "''Free''" Speech ==

<blockquote>'''''Conservapedia is not a society, nor is it a home. Conservapedia has the right to restrict freedom of speech to exclude any discussion on any topic it chooses, and will likely exercise that right for non-family-friendly topics. However, beyond that, Conservapedia should not (and generally does not) restrict one from expressing a view and arguing a case on any topic, but will restrict someone from acting on that view, such as swearing, name-calling, etc.'''''</blockquote>

I have a funny feeling that my complaining about my recent block inspired you, perhaps, to write this essay. (And by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.) Since Conservapedia can, and does, restrict free speech not only in regards to vulgarity and obscenity, wouldn't it be helpful for the editors to make a list of the ''verboten'' topics? Disparaging police is obviously high on the list, I know this from personal experience, in fact I received a ''second'' block for daring to report my first block as ''abuse''. (I felt a bit like Doremus Jessup in [[Sinclair Lewis]]' ''It Can't Happen Here'', but I don't think I'm going to join the "New Underground", yet.)

Now, my asking for a list may sound snide and dismissive, I assure you that while part of me is cynical about this rule, (and many others,) I'm still utterly confused (not to mention angered) by the unilateral and arbitrary blocking that happens here. It seems that many of the blocks are simply for having ''dissenting'' opinions. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:58, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
: Your recent complaint did prompt me to write this, but it's an articulation of thoughts that I've had for a long time, and was not written specifically in response to you.
: Any list of banned topics would be incomplete. As far as I'm concerned (i.e. this is personal opinion; other administrators may see things differently), about the only topics that are unacceptable are ones that are not family-friendly.
: As far as disparaging police is concerned, I've explained my position on that on the abuse page. And again speaking for myself, I won't block anyone just for having a dissenting opinion.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Don't you think it's unfair that I (or anyone else,) should be blocked '''''without warning''''' for stating an unpopular opinion that irks a overzealous editor with block powers (I think you know who...)? If so, then I had ''every right'' to complain about it on the '''abuse''' page, it was '''entirely''' without warning! (And the fact that I received '''another''' for complaining about a previous block is just obscene.) And if not, then you and I have nothing more to discuss. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:04, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Neo-Cains

DLerner — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:08:30 GMT

DLerner: /* Namespace */ second

See [[User talk:Roopilots6#Neo-Cains]]. --[[User:Rp6|Rp6]] 12:08, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

: Seems a bit off-the-wall, though it is admittedly creative. Liberals don't even know the Bible enough to realize what you mean. Maybe others have comments here about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::This should probably be an essay. Also I got confused at first because I thought it was referring to ''Mc''Cain :p [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:16, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

How could anyone confuse ''Mc''Cain, a decorated war hero and Presidential candidate, with Cain, a historical murderer? That sounds truly bizarre!

Aschlafly, I don't care what liberals think; this is a ''conservative'' blog and it should stay that way. All conservatives know who Cain and Abel were. --[[User:Rp6|Rp6]] 16:59, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:Real it in a little bit there; no need to get so worked up. I didn't say I couldn't tell the two apart, I just initially thought "Cain" was short for McCain, and it confused me at first. I've just been reading a lot more about McCain than Cain recently, can you blame me? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:03, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::I guess you were okay to be confused. But no, it has nothing to do with McCain. --[[User:Rp6|Rp6]] 17:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

What in the world is this? I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia here! --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:43, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Comedy thought: you could call them "NovoCain's" too. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 23:38, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Cain was a vegetarian ==

Cain was indeed a vegetarian. According to Genesis, Noah was the first human who God allowed to eat meat, after the flood. He was also the first to drink alcohol.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
::So then I guess Abel was, too - seems worthy of mention, no? [[User:BobbyW|BobbyW]] 12:03, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Abel was a shepherd. Cain was a tiller of the earth. Read your Bible, and ''then'' we can have this discussion. --[[User:Rp6|Rp6]] 12:04, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:And they were both, like everyone before Noah, vegetarians. [[User:BobbyW|BobbyW]] 12:05, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
::I seem to recall everyone being a vegetarian before the fall, though my memory's a tad shady on that. I don't know if there's any specific reference to either of them being vegetarian or not.
::It's a shady analogy at best, guys. Certainly nothing worth edit-warring over. :-) [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 12:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

== Namespace ==

This should be moved to the essay namespace, as it is advocating an action, not describing an encyclopedic topic. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:11, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:I second the motion [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Freedom of speech

DLerner — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:58:22 GMT

DLerner: /* Conservapedian "Free" Speech */ new section

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:27:47 GMT

DLerner: /* My recent block */ reply

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else. {{unsigned|DLerner}}
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Two side notes---what exactly constitutes a "signature template"? Can someone insert, say, an American flag next to their name on each of their sigs? Also, if calling the police "fascists" is name-calling, would calling liberals "fascists" be considered name-calling as well? Thanks! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:50, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::: DLerner, no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation. I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did? Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal? If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions. My point about not saying whatever you want was to point out that there are limits.
::::::: Jareddr, a template, if you don't realise, is a page (usually, but not necessarily, in the ''Template:'' namespace) that is included in another page by means of a link (the Main Page, for example, comprises two templates, i.e. separate pages, that make up the left and right columns of the Main Page respectively). DLerner uses a sub-page of his user page as a template that he has used for his signature. You can insert a flag by means of making a customised signature on your preferences page (I'm not sure how, but I have seen it done). Calling fascists (such as Hitler) "fascists" is factually correct and therefore okay. Otherwise, calling someone "fascist" is merely namecalling, particularly when referring to an institution of a democratic state.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I support the block, I would have blocked him myself at the time. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:''Reply'': '''''"no, you did not call ''all'' police fascists (i.e. Australian, American, Canadian, British, French, Chinese, Russian, Fijian, etc.), but it was a generalisation.'''''. And therefore making a generalization during discussion is a ''blockable offense''?!
:'''''"I'm not sure what your point is about not calling DeanS a fascist: did someone claim that you did?"''''' No. I wrote that in response to what you wrote above, indeed calling some police action fascist ''is'' name calling, but to my understanding, we only need to be civil and avoid name calling towards ''each other'', '''not''' to government organizations . This is to the best of my understanding the name calling policy as written in the guidelines. And frankly I would be shocked if a consensus was reached amongst the movers and shakers of this project that attacking local or federal government agencies was a punishable act. And if such policy is eventually made, I propose it be aptly named [[Conservapedia:Sedition Act]]. (For those not in the know, Google "Alien and sedition act".)
:'''''"did someone claim that you did?"''''' No.
:'''''"Or are you just trying to say that there was nothing personal?"''''' Yes.
:'''''"If so, the point is that on Conservapedia we try and respect our legal institutions."''''' Even when they are not deserving?
:I do not believe that an organization is exempt from criticism merely because it is an arm of the democratic state, nothing is ever exempt from criticism, period. (IMHO, of course).
:If the administrators disagree with me on this, as is most certainly their right, I suggest they draw up clear, concise and easy to understand site policy defining what we may criticize, and what is forbidden. (see above for a name suggestion).
:Cheers and Shabbat Shalom
:[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Aschlafly/Archive44

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:53:13 GMT

DLerner: removed signature template as per PJR's request

==New User==

Aschlafly: I am a new and excited user to your sight, but I am a little lacking in direction. I would love to know where I could begin to help out Conservapedia. I would really appreciate your guidance in the beginning, because I feel that this is a great project and that your ideas for this encyclopedia are great. --[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 16:32, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

: There's over 24,000 fascinating entries here. Start wherever you like! You can view "Recent changes" on the left-side menu to see where the most recent activity is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

::I am having a lot of problems with loading the website, and I don't think it is on my end because other websites still work fine. Is there a known problem with loading conservapedia, and if so, are there any solutions? Thanks, [[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 10:30, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: We're looking into this. Thanks for your interest. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:25, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Oddly, I have better response using CP with Internet Explorer than with Firefox. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I've found Safari works nicely as well. God Bless! [[User:jOhN314]]

::::I have same problem as RoyS, several times an error message appears, and I have to refresh for the page to load properly -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 01:34, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Me too. I thought it was my computer[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 01:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: I also have the same problem, and as above Internet Explorer works better for me than Firefox, which is unfortunate because I perfer Firefox.

: I think the culprit is the upgrade of the MediaWiki software. Maybe I can uninstall some of the extensions. Suggestions are welcome. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:05, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, I use IE as well as FF and have been having problems loading or saving pages with both. There have also been prolonged periods when I have been unable to access any pages. However, sometimes when I have been able to connect the site seemed quite fast to load. So I am not convinced that it is a browser related issue. However, regarding uninstalling MediaWiki extensions I would need to know what has been added. Certainly things worked fine before the upgrade. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:56, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I am a firefox user, and while I hate IE, I am going to try it to see if there is a difference. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 13:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: There are a whole bunch of extensions. I just commented many out. Let's see if that helps. I also commented out another upgrade feature. Thanks for your efforts and suggestions, and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:08, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::References and tables are no longer displaying properly in articles. --[[User:Frieda|Frieda]] 13:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe some extensions require that other extensions be installed with them, why not just install more extensions, just a guess? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 14:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

* type mysql
* when you get the mysql prompt type:
* use <the database name>
* then type:
* show tables;
* this will give you a list of all the tables on the database you need to do this for each table:
* optimize table <nowiki><table name></nowiki>; [[User:WillieC|WillieC]] 14:09, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Further instructions see User:Tmtoulouse

:Hi, I have been having difficulties at the site for a couple of weeks. I thought it might just be my computer, but today I am at another computer and still am having troubles. I am using Internet Explorer and get this messages often: "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage", also the link to "my watchlist" doesn't seem to work. Thanks - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 15:41, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

An addendum to my above comment about IE, I've found that when an edit fails to load using IE, my edits are not retained when I click "back" to the edit page and I need to retype them. On Firefox, when that happens and I go back, the edits are usually retained and I can just immediately resubmit them (after checking if they actually did go through). [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:44, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

: I am still having difficulty too, I get a "page cannot be displayed" message when I click on links. I don't use Firefox browser but I do have better luck using Netscape instead of Internet Explorer, although Netscape is an old browser that no one uses anymore, lol. Hope this info helps isolate whatever issues the site is having. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 12:34, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Hi Andy! I'm sorry to post here, but glad to meet you! However, the cpwebmaster mailserver is not working (I immediately receive 550 error messages back). Also, this morning, as user FinalFrontier I pointed out the parochial/private school citation on the culture page and was blocked (infinitely!) by user Bugle. The reason he gave was "the final frontier is what's between your ears." I really support your site but was thrown off by his rudeness and disrespect. Why did this happen? Thanks, [[User:ParrWest|ParrWest]] 20:58 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your sense of entitlement and placing blame on others suggest to me that you're a liberal. You're only welcome if you comply with our simple [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and contribute more than you complain. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oh sorry, I see now that I wasn't supposed to go to a talk page first; 90% rule, I should have just edited (which you did later today anyway). Thanks, I understand. Have fun!

==MAIN PAGE "NEWS" ITEM==

COULD THE AUG. 31/Sept. 1, 25th year anniversary of shootdown of KAL 007 be noted in the Main page news? Also to note. At that date, there will be a government release of KAL 007 classified information and documents considered by the government as not presently harmful to national security.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 10:23, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: Bert, please remind of this again closer to the anniversary. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy, Here's the reminder[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 13:50, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

== What about these? ==

Andy I am new to this site and new to anti-semitism (I don't believe I have ever met a Jewish person) but I do not believe that this site should support people who make of this type of edit.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Valley_of_Horses&diff=prev&oldid=151980833 Valley of Horses] (note that this is JinxMcHue because of this) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jinxmchue&diff=prev&oldid=140147581]. Jinx was expelled from Wikipedia here for vandalism and sock puppets. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jinxmchue]

He has also defended the edits of a person called ChristianityMeansFreedom as not being antisemetic here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Username_.22ChristianityMeansFreedom.22_judged_to_be_.22profane.2C_disruptive.2C_or_otherwise_inappropriate.22 ]which is where I first noticed JinxMcHue. I suggest he is not an appropriate person to have on this site.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:40, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Just FYI ==

I have had only one username on WP - "Jinxmchue" - which I deliberately locked myself out of in protest. I now only make infrequent edits under my IP address, which I have admitted there. I am not anti-Semitic by any stretch of the imagination. As far as the AFA article here is concerned, I have stated on the article's talk page that I have no problem with the inclusion of the information in question if certain reasonable stipulations are met (which should be easy enough to do). I'll refrain from cluttering up your talk page with squabbles anymore (I'll let you handle the accusations people make from now on), but if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at jinxmchue[at]gmail[dot]com or jinxmchue[at]juno[dot]com. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:41, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Basic position question ==

Hello. Before I start contributing regularly to Conservapedia, I have a question on its basic position. I am strongly Christian, and do not wish to contribute here unless the encyclopedia is not only "politically conservative" but also "true to Christ", and none of this "separation of church and state" hogwash. A brief elaboration on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:Largehat|Largehat]] 21:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: I'm confident that most here would agree that "separation of church and state" is "hogwash", as you put it. How about "separation of school and state"? Now that's a slogan that has some merit!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

: Seperation of church and state, regardless of how disagreeable it is to all right thinking christians, is in fact the law of the land -- not so much because it was written by the Guided Hand of our Blessed Founding Fathers, but because of those black-robed bandits in the Supreme Court and their heathenous decision (Roe v. Wade, anyone). What we really need to do is take the judicial system back from the activist judges and place it back in the hands of the righteous where it belongs! Let's not waste our time on liberal wastes of time like slogans and get this country back on the path of righteousness! (this is one subject that really boils my blood, but good!) GOD BLESS! [[User:jOhN314]]

:: Hold on a moment - I realise this isn't a Debate page, but if you're going to discard the separation of church and state, that means sparking a huge fracas about which church your state is going to align itself with: Christianity, Judaism, or Islam? Say we go with Christianity - Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox? Protestantism is predominant already, so now it's just a matter of which sect - Baptist, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Quaker... You end up with a deeply divisive policy which requires a whole population to fund or observe others' religious beliefs while denying the same privileges to non-sanctioned faiths. It seems to me a pretty simple thing to do what you think is right by God while allowing others to choose for themselves. As Jesus said himself, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:19, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: No one is suggest that the state "align itself" with a particular denomination. The state should not embrace atheism by insisting on censoring religion in public life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: If you ask me, the state has already, and to great success, aligned itself with a particular religion, and moreover the right one. As much as the current administration has been criticized for its failings in military policy, the President has often cited an inspiration from a God, and not the false "God" of middle-east extremists. In much the same way, I see that Conservapedia has already chosen its alignment. See, for instance, our article on [[Jesus Christ]] - it wastes no time in declaring Jesus Christ as the only son of God. [[User:Largehat|Largehat]] 17:05, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow. Just, wow. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:54, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not sure I follow - do you mean school children shouldn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance? [[User:Largehat|Largehat]] 21:34, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, first of all, as a homeschooled person I understand what Aschlafly is talking about. I know some people who are educated in public school, and well, none of the "advantages" of public school that wikipedia notes are valid. The local public school is disgusting, full of "bad" kids (to put it lightly) and most importantly, I don't feel that it instills the values I feel that I was able to get from homeschool. I am also a recent user to Conservapedia, and I love the idea of a wikipedia for homeschoolers. -[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 22:02, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

:::How can you speak so expertly about public school if you've never been? And to speak of "bad kids" is fundamentally problematic, in my opinion. So too is the disrespect you are paying to the thousands and thousands of men and women who work so hard as teachers.-[[User:Kroseman|Kroseman]] 07:02, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: We deal with public school kids all the time without being in public schools ourselves. Pardon this analogy, but don't tell me you think someone has to first be drug addict himself before criticizing drug addicts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Right. As to the Pledge issue, we don't need state schools to recite the Pledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

==Ref==
For some reason the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> and <nowiki><references/></nowiki> are not working on articles -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 13:58, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

: That was a temporary and I think it was quickly fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

==Conservapedia...==
...is running very smoothly again. Thanks for doing whatever it was you did to fix it! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:12, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:: And thanks to you, Bugler, for your perseverance! In fact, I think I'll add that to a conservative trait somewhere. Or maybe we need an entry, [[conservative traits]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:22, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Yay, it's working very well again! Thanks! :) [[User:Taj|Taj]] 01:08, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Note to Andy, it may not be Biblical, but no doubt you've heard that you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Not that you want to attract flies, but it's a useful saying. In any case, I am admittedly less conservative than you are. I would think that a website named Conservapedia would present factual information with a conservative angle. It's very easy, for instance, to legitimately criticize Barack Obama. I would like to have come to this website to see what the conservative viewpoint was on a topic from time to time. But I found your webpage on Barack Obama to be pretty darn close to hateful. I would think that Condoleeza Rice, George Bush, Dick Cheney and even John McCain would be considered conservatives. I doubt they would agree with the "facts" presented on the Barack page. I am certain, for instance, that George Bush wouldn't dispute Barack Obama's claim to be a Christian. And I think stating that Barack Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President would be considered hateful by Condoleeza Rice, another African-American you might someday be calling an Affirmative Action President. I guess it's up to you what you want to with this website. But I am certain that there's a legitimate reason for a website that is like wikipedia but right of center. This is not that website, despite your original intentions. [[User:LonJohnson|LonJohnson]] 10:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Myths pruning==

Your reversion of my edits was accompanied by a request to add cites instead of removing items. The point of my edits was that these items shouldn't have been on the list at all, so trying to find cites for them is irrelevant. What I had done was to list all of the items I was planning on removing on the Talk page, each accompanied by an explanation of why they should be removed. I then waited a day for feedback, and when none was received, proceeded with the deletion. As I pointed out to Jpatt, I did not remove every item, and even left several which were uncited because there was no obvious reason to remove them. This is now the second time in 24 hours that these changes were reverted, with no specific justification why any belong there. I'm simply asking that the Conservapedia Commandments be followed, and in this case they're not. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

: We don't allow ideological censorship here. Please use Wikipedia for that. You deleted the [[liberal myth]] of a population explosion despite easy-to-find citations for it on this site and elsewhere. Look for cites and add them before deleting material.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::Fair point on population, then, although I was removing that because the rate of population ''growth'' is not a myth; whether one considers the planet overpopulated or not is an opinion. My overall point is that I tried to follow good editing protocol by discussing proposed changes first, and then applying them after waiting for feedback.

::The suggestion of liberals generally believing that "The claim that the 9/11 terrorists attacks were an inside job by the USA" is not justifiable without a valid source, though, and shouldn't have been added in the first place without one. This is as unencyclopedic as suggesting that cannabis was involved in Bruce Lee's death when the coroner's reports stated otherwise. This is not "putting out useful information for readers to evaluate"; it's using unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo to make an ideological point, and putting the burden of proof on others to invalidate them. I wouldn't have applied any edits if this was posted as an essay, but since this was an encyclopedia article I was attempting to ground it in facts and improve the quality accordingly.

::I'm not going to restore any of my deletions since you've stated your opposition to them, but I'd appreciate an explanation of why Conservapedia Commandments #1 and #2 only have to apply to non-conservative edits. Facts are ideologically neutral, after all. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:43, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

== Error in article title ==

Andy, I misnamed the article [[AUstralian_dollar]], could you change it please? (The U needs to be de-capitalised.)

Thanks, [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 18:47, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

==Asking again==
*I figure it's worth a shot. I can accomplish nothing really useful here. Ban me. (Oh, and I fixed the centering issue) - [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:19, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're incoherent. "Asking again" about what? I can't read minds and don't have time to try to figure out what you're trying to say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I asked to be banned once before. You asked me not to post Parthian shots on user talk pages (which I assumed was a no). -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:57, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

::::You have made a number of good technical edits that have helped the site. Perhaps you would like to reconsider and just take some time away? Your contributions have been appreciated. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I don't ban people simply because they request to be banned. Request is not a criterion for being banned. If someone requested to be imprisoned, would you imprison him? I wouldn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

== [[Bob Jones University]] ==

Just because the Democrats allowed slavery doesn't mean BJU wasn't racist MUCH after civil rights laws were passed, (they only changed their interracial dating policy in the last decade).

If you feel that the [[Democratic Party]] article needs to have the slavery issue inserted (as it well should), by all means put it in. Removing true and referenced information from an article isn't very productive. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

: This isn't Wikipedia, and one-sided smears of conservative types are not allowed here. If someone wants to put in how an organization was racist decades ago, then start with the Democratic Party. After he completes that in a thorough manner, then he can move on to other organizations. By the way, the Democratic Party supported (not just allowed) slavery, and promoted racism long after slavery ended.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::What does [[Wikipedia]] have to do with the price of [[Rice|rice]]? Yes the [[Democratic Party]] was racist much after the end of the civil war, HOWEVER, it was the Democrats who pushed through the civil rights laws. All the southern Democrats/Dixiecrats opposed to civil rights (e.g. [[Strom Thurmond]]) switched parties and became Republicans. Once again I will say that YES the Dems were opposed to the abolishment of slavery but that has nothing to do with Bob Jones University! Regarding BJU: they weren't racist just decades ago, they were racist after the civil rights act passed, it wasn't 'til a [[Supreme Court]] ruling that required private colleges to accept all races did they allow African-Americans. They mantained an interracial dating ban until approx. '''''2000'''''! The user I think you are referring to wasn't the first to add these '''facts''' about BJU, I added them months ago, he merely expanded what I wrote, why all of a sudden is it a "smear"? Every bit of information added there was 100% true. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:15, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::DLearner, Strom Thurmond was condemned as a racist by the Democrats ''only'' after he left that party to join the Republicans...and never ''before''. Since you are repeating the mantra that the Republicans harbored the racists that were known as the Dixiecrats, your task now is to A) name every single Dixiecrat who lived during the 1940s-1960s; B) name every single Dixiecrat that left the Dems to join the Republicans; and C) name every single Dixiecrat within the Republican Party that refused to drop his racist views (like the current Democrat/KKK member Senator Robert Byrd). Because right now you're charging us conservatives with being racists with little to no historical sources to back that up and I'm not going to tolerate that in the least. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Karajou: A) Please learn how to spell my name. B) MYOB I'm not having a conversation with you, I'm having a discussion with Andy about the logic of pulling valid and true information from the '''[[Bob Jones University]]''' article, I have not called all conservatives racists, I said that the '''Republican Party''' has a history of race issues '''as do most Americans''', And yes I'm aware that Byrd was/perhaps-still-is a KKK member. Why should '''I''' have to name every Dixiecrat, but if you really want to know take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dixiecrats here]. Godspeed '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:58, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::::You made an assertion of racism connected with the Republicans and conservatives, and you still didn't follow through on B and C. By making that racism allegation you are backhandedly calling all of us racists, which makes this my business now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'll admit that writing "all" Dixiecrats became Republicans was hyperbolas, but it still is completely superfluous to the entire discussion! '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly, do you actually believe that the Democratic Party of 150 years ago, and the modern version, are the same exact thing? Both major parties have undergone dramatic transformations, first during the Gilded Age, then during the New Deal, then again in the 1960s. To compare today's Democrats with those of the 1850s is highly problematic (the same is true for the Republicans).--[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 22:03, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, your comment just proves my point about the absurdity of dragging up past history to try to smear a conservative organization today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Andy, nobody is trying to '''smear''' BJU. To be truly "trustworthy" one must write the truth even if it shows a misguided past. Based on your argument I '''could''' argue against writing about [[Watergate]] or any other scandals of the [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] administration, but I '''won't'''. And Andy, Ten years ago hardly qualifies as '''"past history"''' '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:02, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your analogy is illogical, and the obvious motivation for the BJU edit is to smear it. You lose credibility to claim otherwise. First smear the Democratic Party with a complete explanation of its support for slavery and racial discrimination, if you're as fair as you suggest, and then let's see what you have for BJU.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Why is it illogical? Using your argument, I could write in the edit summary while deleting the information about Watergate: ''"removed liberal smear, first write about all the times [[John F. Kennedy|JFK]] lied"''. And EVEN if it was added for the purpose of smear, (it wasn't I was the one who added it originally; while I may not agree with some of their policies [they don't allow [[Jazz]]...], I have no quarrel with them), it does not mean it isn't TRUE! And to be honest, it's probably the '''only notable thing''' about BJU. (Honestly, they weren't even accredited until a few years ago, (though most places '''would''' recognize their diplomas). '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I don't like the fact that during diagreements it's always '''your''' word and '''your''' opinion that must be followed. While [[Wikipedia|wikipedia]] may be flawed and imperfect, they at least have a set of checks and balances. If [[Jimbo Wales]] were to start acting in the way you do, their would be a mass boycott at WP. You keep an American flag as your logo, but through your smug adminstration you desecrate the flag and all it stands for. America is democratic, this site is [[George Orwell|George Orwell's]] "Airstrip one". Godspeed.

::::: [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:27, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DLerner, we have a [[90/10 rule]] against incessant ranting like yours. Admit that the obvious: the edit to the BJU entry was an attempt to smear it about its past, in a way that is not done to the [[Democratic Party]].

:::::: Please contribute in an educational way here, or leave. Thank you and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I'm well within the "guidelines" of the [[90/10 rule]] thank you very much, (intresting how it's always brought up when you're losing an argument...) If you want to add it the [[Democratic Party]] page <big>'''do it yourself'''</big>, stop deluding yourself with false piety about removing so called "smear" [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:53, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) DLerner is right. This is [[censorship]] of a well-sourced fact, in that you, having some authority over this website, have repeatedly removed a provable fact from it. Just because something is politically or morally inconvenient to you doesn't make it untrue. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 20:20, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not going to waste more time on talk, talk, talk about this. As I said, if there is a genuine concern about historical support of racism by an organization, then start with the [[Democratic Party]]. Otherwise, go somewhere else to post biased smears.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

::Well then, here's your dirt on the Democratic Party. From the existing Conservapedia page on the [[Democratic Party]]:

::*"Andrew Jackson, who defeated Adams in the 1828 election and signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, according to the Democratic National Committee's website is "considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party". Annual Jefferson-Jackson Day celebrations nationwide by local chapters of the Democratic Party commemorate the two founders of the Democratic Party. The Indian Removal Act, enforced through a series of dishonest dealings with native people such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabitt Creek and the Treaty of New Echota, resulted in the wholesale deportation of Native Americans from the Southeastern states to Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma)."

::*"During and after the period of the Civil War, the Democratic party was noted for being heavily supportive of the institution of slavery. In fact, its views were in direct opposite of the newer Republican party, which opposed slavery and believed that the vile institution should be eliminated. It would be many years before the Democrats recognized that they needed to hide their views about slavery in order to attract support and become more in line with the mainstream Republican Party."

::And from the existing Conservapedia page on the [[Republican Party]]:

::*"...the election of Lincoln in 1860, ending 60 years of dominance by the slavery-supporting Democrats..."

::*"From the Reconstruction era up to the turn of the century, the Republicans benefited from the Democrats' racist origin and their association with the Confederate States of America."

::This webpage already discusses racial problems in the history of the Democratic Party. I am now restoring the section about racial issues on the Bob Jones University page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:11, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

==Debate?==
Aschlafly, I see that PZ Myers is going to debate Ray Comfort soon. I think it would be a great idea if you debated PZ Myers. He has been harshly critical of Conservapedia, and it would be a great way for more people to learn about your wonderful site--[[User:Mantle|Mantle]] 22:22, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'd be happy to debate any evolutionist and/or atheist and/or liberal, including PZ Myers. But beware: liberals often are not willing to debate conservatives, because often the liberals lose.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:57, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

: And often, the conservatives declare victory, regardless of who actually won. See [[Lenski_dialog|this page]] for an example. --[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 12:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, and at the last liberal-conservative debate on a big issue in New York City (re: [[global warming]]) conservatives like [[Michael Crichton]] won. Maybe it's the adherence to '''fact over ideology''' that does it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:26, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::It is interesting that anyone who believes in creation over evolution could talk about adherence to fact over ideology. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong on the issue, but the fact is that creation is ideologically-based, evolution is factually-based. --[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 12:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Andy, this is Ames. I [http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/08/04/pistols-at-dawn-schlaflys-challenge-accepted-and-the-latest-news-from-conservapedia/ accept your challenge.] Where should we debate?-[[User:StaCW5|StaCW5]] 16:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:That Myers-Comfort debate has been canceled. Supposedly it was the radio station's idea, but I suspect PZ had a hand in it. Now Comfort and Myers will be featured on two separate days. You can listen live here: http://www.wday.com/benandjim/ [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:: As I noted, liberals often avoid, refuse, or back out of debating conservatives. The reason is obvious: liberals lose ground in a substantive debate that includes the other side. Liberals do better by trying to censor or demonize conservatives. It's rare that a liberal actually picks up support due to a debate with a conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice. A good, formal debate would be good for all parties.
:Andy, are you going to accept my debate offer? You said you'd debate any liberal, right? Let's go!-[[User:WCats|WCats]] 18:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::I'm a liberal, and I'm willing to debate you, too! --[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 19:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I am Spartacus.[[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am Spartacus! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT

Reply to Ames and others: I welcome debating liberals and look forward to it. But because I know how often liberals avoid and duck such debates, some assurances against cancellation would be needed. Perhaps a security deposit to guard against the liberal backing out?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: Are you going to put up a security deposit, too? --[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 12:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Hi Andy, it's Ames again, 
I'm glad you intend to carry through on your promise of a debate. I'm excited. However, I frankly consider your request for a "down payment" to be ridiculous, and either an attempt at grandstanding, or a polite way of backing out without looking like a coward (since no-one will actually want to pay).

Just so, I won't pay you money for the privilege to debate you. If you want to erect a financial barrier to allow you to duck the confrontation, please carry on. However, I'm willing to grant you multiple other assurances that I won't back out of any debate. 
# I'm a man of integrity, and I never back down on a promise of this nature.
# My viewership is large enough that, if I backed out and that fact was made known on my site, I'd be laughed out of the blogosphere.
# I'd be drummed/laughed out of RW if I backed out.

In short, you needn't worry that I'll back out. Since I can meet your soft criterion without the promise of money, I'm sure you'll agree to a debate.

Here's what I imagine. Since an actual face-to-face is unlikely given lack of venue/money, I think we have two choices. You could unblock my user name & IP, for the limited purpose of debating you, and promise not to block me for debating you, unless I, say, use profanity or something. Or you could register at my site and I'll create an open post thread, and we could debate in the comments section. I'd verify your IP address to make sure that no-one is posing as you, and I'd approve all of your comments unedited. Please let me know what you think is the best option. You can also e-mail me, ames@nyu.edu or comment on [http://www.acandidworld.net the blog]. Thanks!-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 17:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

: In response to KRoseman, conservatives don't back out of debates as liberals do, but I'm happy to put up a deposit if there is any doubt.

: In response to the alleged Ames (DParker), we've already debated online many times and I doubt that is interesting to anyone. I thought you had a live debate in mind, with time limits, questions and answers, rebuttals, etc. Yes, that does cost a little money and I'm not interested in having another liberal turn tail and run away from it. Hence a security deposit is advisable, and I'm sure you can afford it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::Andy, why say "alleged"? I gave you my e-mail address to verify if you want to. Go ahead. As to the rest, I can't afford a "live debate" - I'm a third-year law student mired in debt from a fantastic, albeit pricey, law school. A few years of clerkship bonus/associate salary and maybe I can foot the bill for a venue. But, if you're interested in a live venue, feel free to foot the bill yourself. Lord knows ''you'' have the money. If you're actually going to put money into the debate, as in, by hiring a venue, I'd be happy to put down a deposit or otherwise contribute, keeping in mind my limited means. However, that seems like a lot of bother.
::Now, we've never had a "real" debate, in the sense that you could end any debate we've ever been in by banning me. Which you... have done. Frequently. As I've said on my site, my record against you is unblemished by failure, since all of my debates with you ended with either you ignoring my response, or you blocking me to avoid my inevitable response. I think a real internet debate, as in, back-and-forth with a promise that neither user would block the other, would be a first, and would be interesting. That's a minimal-cost, minimal-time investment way for you to prove that you'll beat a liberal in any debate. The question, then, is - why not?
::I thank you in advance for not blocking me while we negotiate this.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 18:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:::If you can afford the "albeit pricey" college you're in, you can afford the deposit. And yes, Ames, you're banned again, for lying. As usual. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Moving on, Andy, I had an idea. Perhaps the next time you give a "Conservapedia Conference," here in the city, or somewhere reasonably on NJT/MetroNorth/LIRR access, I could be a guest speaker, and have you debate me afterwards. That way no-one's paying for a new venue, because it's already booked & in use for something extra, and I'll cover my transit. Seems fair to me, and I'm obviously fine speaking to a hostile audience. It's what us lawyers do :-). Also, I'm sure you'll find me a kind soul in person. I hope you take this idea into consideration. As always, you know where to reach me.-[[User:Acg322|Acg322]] 21:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: Better yet, Ames, you organize a crowd of 150 and invite me to speak to it and take questions. Once the crowd is confirmed, I'll get over there ASAP.

::::: By the way, if you can't afford a security deposit to guarantee your attendance at an event you've suggested I arrange, then how do you afford going to law school, or even going out to dinner?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:38, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Just out of curiosity, approximately what amount are we looking at for this deposit, and who would hold it? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 17:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I would have thought that an internet debate would garner a far wider audience. I for one would be very interested in observing. As I do not live in the US I would be unable to attend in person. Is there some reason you do not want to debate this person online?

::::::: I should also point out that blocking this fellow whilst he is trying to set up this debate makes the conservative side look a little afraid. --[[User:DenningMR|DenningMR]] 17:26, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia the other night when I noticed a section about this exchange that accused Schlafly of attempted extortion. However, the section was promoptly deleted, and I have added a page to Conservapedia about the conservative presence on Wikipedia. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 22:23, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== Oh, you gotta add this to the Obama article. It's priceless! ==

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=200068

<blockquote>
At a recent campaign event in Springfield, Missouri, Senator Obama (D-Illinois) once again made it clear that offshore oil drilling is not included in his energy plan. "There are things that you can do individually though to save energy – making sure your tires are properly inflated," said Obama. "Simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much," he contends.
</blockquote>

Just another reason to keep this guy from getting anywhere near the Oval Office. (I'd add it myself, but I can't since the article is locked.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:So you don't save gas by having fully inflated tires? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:02, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Psst, Jinx: that may be a tough question, so [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml here's a hint]. Of course, it's hyperbole on Obama's part, but that's hardly new to politics or potential presidents...[[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Here's a recent LAT article talking about a Schwarzenegger and Crist publicity event, "Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change -- average citizens -- to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption." [http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-arnold27-2008jun27,0,1954634.story] Oh, and here's another liberal organization's take on the idea, "With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy." Thanks, [http://www.nascar.com/2006/auto/07/25/tires/ NASCAR!] --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:17, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Before anyone mocks this stuff, it's worth scanning the math for this claim. The EPA suggests that there's a 1% loss in fuel efficiency for every 2psi a tire is under-inflated, and [http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra/050921_tire.html a Carnegie Mellon study] suggests proper tire inflation could save each driver about 144 gallons a year. Nationally, [http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2007/html/table_01_11.html there's about 135 million cars]. That's a saving of nearly 20 billion gallons of gasoline per year, in the USA alone. And that's for autos only, and ignores trucks, SUV's, etc. So whether you agree with Obama or not, the numbers gained from simply running the country more efficiently are not to be sniffed at. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 20:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Perhaps [[liberals]] can propose a fine for people who don't have recommended tire inflation??? How about random road blocks on freeways to pull over cars that don't have government-specified psi???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, that's not a bad idea, since [http://www.aaanewsroom.net/main/Default.asp?CategoryID=4&ArticleID=576 "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tells us that 660 fatalities and 33,000 injuries occur every year as a result of low tire pressure-related crashes"]. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future such legislation is brought in. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 21:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Reply to Andy's comment - I would actually propose that any location that sells gasoline be required to install an air compressor and let people use it for free. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I don't much like Obama, but I find it hard to fault him for suggesting that individuals take responsibility for saving gas, rather than looking to the government to fix the problem. I'm all for solutions that avoid Big Government intervention. Of course, that also means I'd like to see domestic energy sources utilized. (That's not just offshore drilling, either...what about the natural gas reserves sitting under the Great Lakes? Canada's tapping them, and has been for years. Why aren't we?) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Unfortunately, suggesting people take responsibility for saving gas is NOT what Obama's comment was about. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Your math is perfect, but unfortunately you are assuming that every single one of those 135 million cars has improperly inflated tires, which is simply a ludicrous assumption to make. Once you can prove to me how many of those cars don't have properly inflated tires, then you've got something of a case. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Gas is saved, yes, but not to the point Obama is trying to portray. To believe Obama's numbers, you'd have to believe that every driver in America is a dumb clod who doesn't regularly check tire pressure. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Err, what's wrong with believing that? I know I don't know ''how'' to check my gas pressure... :) '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:00, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, if you've got problems with gas pressure, there's always Gas-X and Beano. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:08, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::HEY! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Fair point, Jinx. Then again, I'm not sure any of us should be surprised when a politician exaggerates. I'm not sure why it has to be an either/or. In fact, I think that if the country's ever going to achieve energy independence, it can't be an either/or proposition--there's no one magic bullet that's going to accomplish that. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:01, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The problem with Obama's latest wackiness is:

:::: it's elitist in claiming that frequent drivers don't check tire pressure (in poor neighborhoods, many go further and remove pollution control devices)

:::: Obama is running for public office, not to sermonize about good behavior about something he knows nothing about

:::: Obama is exaggerating the potential benefit in order to continue to prevent drilling for more oil, the free market solution--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I agree that offering routine maintenance as an alternative to energy exploration is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst, Andy. Is it elitist? Probably, but I've heard worse. Certainly, suggesting that lots of drivers could take better care of their cars is a lot less offensive than suggesting that the Army is a place for high-school dropouts. I don't really think there are politicians at that level who aren't elitist; it's just that some of them are better at concealing it than others. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Jinx and Andy - If you read the Carnegie Mellon student study I posted above, you'll see that in their sample of 81 cars, only one had tire pressure within 20% of correct pressure. And [http://auto.howstuffworks.com/self-inflating-tire.htm according to AAA], over 80% of cars have at least one tire severely under-inflated. Whether you support Obama or not seems irrelevant, it's a damn good idea that can save anyone money and shave a little off our gas needs. With 200 million+ vehicles on the roads of America, if we all did it, we could indeed save a vast reservoir of gas. I can't see why you wouldn't do this anyway, regardless of political affiliation? I just checked my tires and they were indeed under spec. How's about you go check yours and report back?[[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Engel,
:Is a sample population of 81 cars really large enough to be both representative and statistically valid? How were the cars selected? (If the methodology is included at the link you offered, just say so, and I'll take a look a little later.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, it's all in the document. And I agree - 81 cars is a VERY small sample size, barely better than anecdotal. However, their figures (1 in 81) are much, much lower than AAA's, who claim that [http://www.aaanewsroom.net/main/Default.asp?CategoryID=4&ArticleID=576 1 in 3 cars has a significantly underinflated tire]. So the Carnegie Mellon student study looks more than solid by comparison. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 21:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Amazing how liberals think they are smarter than the free market, isn't it? I've got it: new mandatory classes in public school about how to put air in tires!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, that's a good idea, Andy. Like teaching them how to balance their checkbook. It could be part of driver's ed, in schools that offer it. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I learned how to write a check in elementary school. (I just felt I had to contribute something to the discussion; Human stole the last thing I was going to say a little while ago.) -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm confused by your flippant responses to this - are you suggesting it's NOT a good idea to take simple measures to save gas? It's not a "liberal" idea, it's just a "sensible" idea. It seems the age-old quality of thrift is being lost in the modern world and everyone is a selfish glutton now. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 22:45, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:Gas-saving measures are actually very '''conservative'''. Careless waste is '''liberal'''. Any dictionary will tell you that. [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:58, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:Oh, I don't know, Andy. Probably not a mandatory class, but I'd be glad to see our school offer an elective course on home and auto maintenance...just as I'd like to see them offer much more extensive classes on responsible money management. Those are skills everyone needs, regardless of their eventual career. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

TIME OUT! (Please?) A lot of people are missing the point. It's not that Obama was saying this because it's a good idea, saves money and keeps roads safer. He said it because of the issue of drilling for oil in new places (not just reserves). Tire pressure will not bring down the price of gas. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:55, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::Why do you want to see an end to a perfectly reasonable debate? A number of you have mocked the suggestion, but not one of you are able to deny that, while it's NEVER going to save us from the eventual disappearance of carbon-based fuels, it would without a shadow of a doubt HELP a little. And with a little help here, a little drilling there, you might be amazed at what could be accomplished. Jinx - do you deny it is a useful idea to save gas? And why is everyone so against a little thrifty conservation? The elephant in the room is - why on Earth no-one is proposing raising national fuel economy standards by a much more significant amount, when our cars are anything but fuel misers? [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:04, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Regulations can't do better than the free market. That's what liberals can't grasp. Many drivers, especially women, are not comfortable or inclined to spend their time putting air in tires. It's foolhardy to think that will solve the problem any more than telling people to stop eating outside of the home would. People already maximize their marginal benefit and spend their time the way they want. Government would waste more money trying to change that than would be saved in benefits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Things that happened because the free market was left unregulated: monopolies, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, the Stock Market crash of 1929, Enron, WorldCom, child labor, DDT and the resulting birth defects, unsafe milk, etc. Yeah, you're absolutely right, Aschlafly. Things like the Pure Food and Drug Act, child labor laws, bank regulations, and workplace safety laws are horrible ideas. The free market surely worked great in all of those cases. --[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 12:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Who said anything about the Government - the salvation of all public crises lies ultimately with the people. Like I said, it seems the once-respected personal discipline of thrift and a respect for the limited resources God gave us - and our children, who will live with the results of our gluttony - have been thrown out the window. [[User:EngelUmpocker|EngelUmpocker]] 23:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::How about a private campaign (well, you know, public, of course) to get the major gas companies to install "free air" at their stations, and also to publicize that their employees will help those who cannot help themselves? By the way, Andy, why don't women specifically want to take care of their air pressure? Pretty much everyone these days pumps their own gasoline, and that's a ''lot'' ickier. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

There appears to be an amazing amount of ignorance about what opening up offshore drilling would do to the price of gas. The benefits of US offshore drilling would not be felt for many years and in the meantime global demand for oil will have increased, pushing the price higher. In a free market the prices charged for domestic oil will not be significantly less than the international market price. Firstly not all of the available regions would be opened up at once as this would dilute the net return of license fees to the US government. So a period of appraisal would be required to identify the most likely areas, after which there would be a licensing round in which oil companies would tender for offshore acreage. It could take up to 2 years before oil majors could even acquire any blocks. Once the oil company has a block then an exploration plan would have to be drawn up. This would normally require a period of 2-D exploration requiring the contracting of a seismic exploration vessel followed by processing of the acquired data and geological interpretation, currently there is a shortage of seismic vessels as many were scrapped after the last downturn in the market. More vessels are being built but it takes about two years to design, build and outfit a vessel from scratch. There is also a shortage of experienced personnel. Oil companies typically demand that the vessels be staffed by key-people with a minimum of 5-7 years experience. Offshore exploration also tends to be seasonal - once a platform is in production it can withstand rough weather but reasonably calm conditions are required for the exploration work.

Following evaluation of the broad geological structures an exploratory well will be drilled at a suitable location (at a minimum this would be 2 years after obtaining a licence). Again there is a shortage of offshore drilling rigs and there is a long lead-time in constructing new ones. One might think that smaller companies would leap at the chance of discovering offshore oil but there is a considerable financial barrier to entry in the market. Joe motorist might think that the oil companies are making huge profits but it is a highly capital intensive industry. If hydrocarbons '''are''' discovered then wells need to be cased, cemented and logged and the information correlated with the seismic structural data. Offshore oil-fields are generally more complex than on-shore owing to the amount of faulting and slumping on the continental margins and salt diapirs. To develop a field would then require a 3-D survey with planning, government and partner approval, acquisition, interpretation, petrophysical analysis and reservoir modelling something that could take about 2-3 years to complete. This would then be followed by more wells to enable efficient extraction and permit water injection. There would also be a need to establish infrastructure to deliver the oil to shore. This could easily take another two years, so in total it might be 8-10 years before any oil flows and that would only be for successful blocks, four or five years would also be wasted on unsuccessful blocks. The amount of oil discovered would also only be a very small fraction of the global market so it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the price.

I should also point out that the whole process of interpreting the geological structures, including depositional sequences, erosion, unconformities, orogeny, faulting, salt diapirism, petrophysical properties (which are the accumulated result of millions of years of variations in pressure and temperature and can be read much like tree rings) and the formation of hydrocarbon from buried algal deposits is achieved entirely through the application of long time-period, secular geologic models. No oil-field has ever been discovered and developed using a 6000-year old creationist, flood-geology model.

Market forces can determine the price of a commodity but the supply of hydrocarbons is relatively inelastic because of the long lead time involved in developing new reserves. If you want to drive down the price of gasoline you need to address the '''demand''' side of the equation by cutting consumption. Efficient use of gasoline such as utilising correct tire pressures can play a small part in reducing overall consumption, only a complete idiot would assume that a call for people to use the right tire pressures was supposed to bring down the price of gas. It is a move to reduce overall cost of motoring along with eliminating unnecessary journeys and using more fuel-efficient engines. If people don't want to drive economically then they pay for the luxury of underinflated tires. Government legislation to mandate air-compressors at gas-stations is unnecessary as increased awareness about using them will create a customer demand for them. Suggesting that women are unable to check tire pressures is insulting and derogatory. A conservative mom who cares about her household budget will take the trouble to learn how to check her tire pressure, the same way she learns to check for bargains at the supermarket. In general, women with a family are more concerned about costs than men are as they have to manage the household on the fixed budget that their husband often supplies. [[User:Explorationist|Explorationist]] 07:43, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:I have a suggestion - can we move this discussion, or continue it, at a debate page? It's very interesting, but we are cluttering up Andy's talk page (making endless orange "message" boxes for him when no one is actually "talking to Andy"), and soon it will get archived as part of his regular housekeeping. I would start it (the debate page) but I don't want to step on any toes if that sort of thing isn't done around here. Oh, and if someone does start it up, please leave a link to it here so we can all find it. Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

:The long-winded comment above leaves much to object to. But all I have time for now is to point out that even the increased possibility of offshore drilling can help reduce the hype and speculation over oil, and its expected future availability. This can indeed bring down the price now. In fact, we may be seeing this effect already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, I apologize for what you deem to be a long-winded comment but I sought to educate your young students rather than indulge in the petty political posturing of some earlier contributors to the discussion. If you think that the recent drop in the price of oil is the result of the ''possibility'' of permitting exploration in previously prohibited areas then I am sure that you will concede that the increase in prices was purely the product of short-term sentiment caused by market speculators. As speculation in the financial markets rarely exceeds a period of a few months then it can be concluded that the price was bound to come down any way. Whatever happens, (excluding the random noise of financial markets) any long-term benefit resulting from the exploration and drilling of those areas will not be felt for almost a decade and by then global demand will have increased significantly unless there is either a considerable improvement in the energy-efficiency of western economies or the economies of India and China have somehow self-destructed. Most large oil-fields are at or near peak-production and constrained from increasing output by efficiency considerations. I would. however, be interested in hearing your objections to my comments above as I have been involved in oil exploration for over 35 years and would be intrigued to learn what insights you can shed on the matter. [[User:Explorationist|Explorationist]] 16:18, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The price of oil today is not merely a function its availability today, but due to speculation it can also be a function of its future availability. A Picasso painting is worth more if there are fewer in existence. But if the Getty Museum is sitting on a top of Picasso paintings, that will effect an auction price even if the Getty Museum is not likely to flood the market with those paintings for a long time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::::As I pointed out above, price fluctuations caused by speculation are short-term as no speculator wishes to sit on an open position for a long period. Speculators wish to make a profit and move on to the next opportunity or they cut their losses and reallocate reources. Have you never traded options? Prices revert to a mean very quickly. I fail to understand what point you are trying to make with your analogy of Picasso paintings as de Beers sits on a mountain of diamonds and maintains a high price. Investors are comfortable with de Beers not flooding the market and with no need to make a profit the Getty Museum is unlikely to dispose of any of its acquisitions. [[User:Explorationist|Explorationist]] 18:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, you still haven't provided a credible refutation for your accusation that my explanation of ''why new offshore drilling is unlikely to have an effect on the price of oil for almost a decade'' "leaves much to object to". When the coffee harvest in Brazil fails, does the price of coffee on the world market go down because the farmers say there will be another crop for next year? No, of course it doesn't! The price stays high until the crop reaches the market. Can you not admit that promises to allow drilling on the US continental margins are purely political posturing designed to [[deceit|deceive]] uninformed voters that their gas bills are going to be slashed? If you intend to teach economics to schoolchildren then you must divorce yourself from partisan politics and address the realities. [[User:Explorationist|Explorationist]] 11:12, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::: All agree that the high price of oil is due in part to the speculators, and offshore drilling would influence them immediately. So far the speculators are betting on the Democrats blocking offshore drilling for the foreseeable future. If that bet is proven wrong, the price would likely fall because of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Only part of the high price of oil is influenced by speculators, the rest is demand/supply related. As I pointed out above, speculation is a short-term activity so that any price moves quickly revert to the mean. Therefore, speculation-induced price rises will self-correct without resorting to politics. There may be a case for opening up more acreage to ensure long-term supplies but current prices are unlikely to unwind '''''just''''' because a politician promises something that will not bear fruit for many years. [[User:Explorationist|Explorationist]] 12:13, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Howard Stern ==

Thanks for the edit. I think [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Howard_Stern&diff=495586&oldid=495580 this language] is a good compromise.--[[User:BarbaraBui|BarbaraBui]] 23:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== SamHB ==

(This is being communicated to ASchlafly, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor)

Andy, Tim, and Ed:

As you may be aware, there was an enormous blowup about a month ago, relating to educational articles about math and science. A considerable amount of damage was done to CP's educational offerings in these areas, and a number of people (including me) were blocked for various periods of time. You might want to look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:SamHB#An_Open_Letter_to_Ed_Poor my user page] (and feel free to comment there if you wish.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

: What's your point? Please state it concisely and directly. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, as concisely as I can, I'd like you to intervene positively in the matter of math and science articles. I'd like you to promulgate a policy of discussion and consensus-reaching, rather than just blocking, when a sysop has a problem (other than vandalism, of course) with an article. For more detail, read the user page, when you have time. This really is important. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:15, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know what you're requesting. You can obviously edit and I suggest you proceed to do so, while obviously respecting our [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] and others. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

(removed inappropriate, endless debate from my talk page)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Classroom prayer article ==

I added the paragraphs about the examples of students, didn't I, when the material was in a different article? Or is my mind playing tricks on me at this late hour? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

== More on Debates ==

Thanks to Jaguar and other posters who gave their accounts for me.

Andy, first, please do call off your dogs while we negotiate this. Keep Jinx and Karajou in line so that we can talk. Your negligence in controlling them suggests either your indifference to this subject - which really suggests that your challenge to all lib'ruls everywhere was perhaps not made in earnest - or your glee in intentionally frustrating my attempt to speak with you, which is just sadistic.

Is the "Conservapedia Conference" option is still on the table? I thought you had dismissed that possibility sarcastically with your 150 people comment, but since conservatives don't use sarcasm, I have to assume you've neither accepted nor rejected that yet. If the CP Conference is off the table, as to the live debate, based on this discussion, I don't think that's going to happen. For one, your last question was more than a little insulting. A hundred-to-a-thousand dollar venue deposit is obviously more than a dinner out, obviously not something I budgeted for, and obviously the law school money is already allocated. Have you used a budget before? So, I reiterate the "CP Conference" compromise, but apart from that, let's forget face-to-face until I have a little more cash.

I reiterate my suggestion of an internet debate, either on CP or on my blog, or perhaps on neutral ground (we could work that out). We've never had a debate that hasn't ended in me getting blocked, so it would be a first. It would prove that liberals are more than happy to stand toe-to-toe with you, and that you're not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with liberals, without a banhammer behind your back. I urge you to consider that option.

However, if you're only willing to debate face to face and on my dime, then you might have to retract your statement that liberals are too cowardly to debate you, and change it to reflect that, rather, you're too cheap to debate us.

If you continue to let your sysops block me while I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you - and if you refuse to consider a web debate, which seems to be what the masses want - I will consider you to have forfeited.-[[User:JamesCC|JamesCC]] 18:37, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: Ames, frankly, you seem to want attention more than anything. You can "consider" whatever you like, but I've agreed to debate you as already outlined. If you won't come up with an audience or a security deposit, then I suggest you try other proven ways of satisfying your human need for attention. Try marriage, for example, which has worked for billions of people. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:40, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::Andy, you would be sad to see what the economic principles this personal blog of yours supports have done to working families and marriages. To think that in this country there is such a thing as ''working'' poor is unacceptable. I love America and the rights it gives me so much. I benefited, perhaps more than even you, from its wonderful opportunities; but with great power comes great responsibility. And I would argue, great compassion. Delete this comment when you wish, but please consider how few words you devote to [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] compared to how many you devote to [[homosexuals|homosexuality]]. In Christ, our savior. --[[User:RolandBrass|RolandBrass]] 20:35, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Your comments are incoherent, and wildly incorrect in many ways. Millions of poor people do everything they can to enter this country. The same cannot be said about countries that have other economic systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

== Someone attempted to hack my account ==

I got a change-of-password email tonight. The request was made from IP 92.21.189.105, which I'm going to guess will turn out to be some kind of proxy/anonymous internet server. Probably would be a good idea to block that IP from CP. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:59, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::noreply@conservapedia.com to Fox
::show details 3:34 PM (13 hours ago) Reply
::Someone (probably you, from IP address 92.21.189.105)
::requested that we send you a new password for Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php).
::The password for user "Fox" is now xxxxxxxxx
::You should log in and change your password now.
::If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

:: [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 00:02, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Wonder how many they tried. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Pretty amateur and negligible if they thought they would somehow get passwords sent to their mongo@igor.com email address rather than to the addresses linked to the user accounts lol. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 00:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::"mongo@igor.com" *snort* Hahahaha! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Someone tried the same thing with my account as well. I just noticed a ''New temporary password for Conservapedia'' message in my in-box. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 10:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

And again, from 63.167.255.155. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:44, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:That one tracks back to Sprint. Might want to contact their abuse center: http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=63.167.255.155 [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Debates, Round 3 ==

Hi Andy,

After you turned my acceptance of your debate challenge into a chance to indulge in ad hominem attacks - something I thought only liberals did! - and continued to up the expense of our debate to the point where I couldn't participate, I was happy to write the potential for real debate off, since it appeared clear to me that your challenge to the liberal community was not made in good faith.

However, since, I've found no small amount of support for carrying through with this from The Other Place: namely, it seems that a good deal of them would be happy to put some money towards a debate, meaning that I might indeed be able to meet your "down payment" on a face-to-face debate venue. What kind of venue do you have in mind? And how much money are we talking about? I may indeed be able to meet it.

Is insistence on face-to-face debate an attempt to [[liberal dilution|dilute]] your challenge to all liberals? I continue to think that, if you really cared about an honest exchange of ideas, you'd be more interested in ''lowering'' transaction costs for serious debate, and thus would more readily submit to an internet debate, especially since 99% of the interested audience is best reached by the internet. But since face-to-face seems ''possible'' now, let's discuss.

Unless I see some attempt to be serious, though, this'll be the last you hear from me.-[[User:CDax|CDax]] 14:41, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

==Fleeing suspects==

Hi, Andy. I'm back from vacation with a legal question.

Are cops allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back? If so, under what circumstances?

(The context of this question is the two border patrol men who got 11 and 12 years in jail after the smuggler they shot was granted immunity in exchange for testimony ... and still kept smuggling!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:23, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, the Compean and Ramos case! In answer to your question, I think it depends on the circumstances. Just watch Court TV and you'll see cops giving high speed chase, and even shooting, fleeing suspects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::Well, of course. We all know cops ''do that'', but the question is whether it's legal or not. And the other question is whether the female judge in question was engaging in [[judicial activism]] to stop the practice, or what?

::Are we Americans asking our police to do things which we don't back them up for after they do them? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Not everything that police officers do is right, Ed Poor. --[[User:Krogers|Krogers]] 18:29, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

::::True, but stopping criminals using whatever means necessary is right. Despite popular myths, cops are not on-the-edge psychopaths who are just itching to draw their weapons and fire for the slightest provocation. They are highly trained with their weapons because their weapons can and do kill. They know their weapons can and do kill and taking someone else's life is not something any cop wants to live with. Even if they're faced with a murderous psycho murderer, killing is the absolute last thing a cop wants to do. But if they are forced to do it, they will do it. And afterwards, it's not like in the movies where Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson just "walk it off" and tomorrow is just another day. In real life, cops are affected permanently by such events. It stays with them forever. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:47, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Request Unlock ==
Hi, would like to add Christianity information from talk page to George Washington. Please unlock temporarily, thanks in advance.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the suggestion. It was time to unlock that page anyway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== At this stage? ==

Andy, will this mess-up be righted at this stage?

[edit] Mess up at bottom
The Soviet Action section got removed from its place and now is at bottom with references attached to it wrongly. Can someone untangle and restore?Bert Schlossberg 10:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)I had tried to do it. The "edit page" has the Soviet Action in the right place even though page itself has it in the wrong place. How can that be? When I click on to the "edit section" itself for Soviet Action, what comes up is the "Flight" section.Bert Schlossberg 09:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:51, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Bert (and others), I have taken care of this. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 20:58, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

==Debate==
Hello, Mr. Schlafly, I've been a casual observer of Conservapedia for a little while but I never started an account until now. I am a bit intrigued about this offer of a debate with any liberal/evolutionist (I suppose a qualify as the former, and no doubt the latter). I'm in Grad School, studying biology. I'm currently taking a course in Neurobiology on Cape Cod, but I will be back at NYU before too long and think a live debate about evolution could be an interesting an informative endeavor. I was captain of my debate team in high school, but have since given it up, though I do miss it. I notice you have requested a security deposit. While I know many could probably not afford one, I am from a relatively well-off family and for me it is not out of the question, depending on the amount specified (I am still a student, and hardly rich). How much did you have in mind? If funds are needed for a venue I wouldn't mind contributing a small amount. If debating a grad school student is beneath you, there is always a remote chance I could convince one of my professors to throw their hat in the ring, but I will need to know the specifics. Thanks for your consideration. [[User:CFredB|CFredB]] 19:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:Andy, Ames again - hi CFredB, I'm at NYU as well. If you manage to stage this, may I participate as well, on your side? I'm also pleased to announce that I'll be able to secure funding from friends and comrades at a site... whose name I can't get past the spam filter. CFredB, please keep me apprised of how this goes and keep me in mind. You can contact me through my website, www.acandidworld.net, where you'll also find an article about my failed attempt to get Andy to debate me, alone.
:Andy, if you're worried about being ganged up on, you could bring Ed Poor.-[[User:Expectopatronum|Expectopatronum]] 20:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:: You guys are tilting at windmills. We've all agreed to meet Andy's terms, and we hear nothing but silence from him. He clearly will not debate. I guess it's not the liberals that back out, after all. (Incidentally, I was banned for three days the last time I posted a message on this matter. Wonder what the ban will be this time?) -[[User:KRoseman|KRoseman]] 4:17, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==Essayism==

In the article on "Gender differences", I removed some strong and seemingly arrogant essayism from the page. You restored the opinion-editorial material, with no explanation. Why did you do so? [[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 11:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

== Block request for usernames created in the last few minutes ==

[[User:000JesusWasGay]] and [[User:JesusWasGay]]

[[User:Barclay|Barclay]] 10:26, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

(removed rants)

==Wikiproject:News==
Andy, I propose moving this invitation
'''[[Conservative]] editors - Sign up to work on the news wikiproject [[Wikiproject:News|here]]'''

to Template:Mainpageleft, after the Courses section. I would like to give the Wikiproject:News invitation a permanent home instead of disappearing in the News archives. Seven editors have already signed up and two editors are currently contributing news items and creating corresponding Conservapedia [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|articles]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:27, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

: Sounds great. Thanks much for your efforts. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

::I came up with an even better idea. I put it at the top of the news section, just below the heading. Now it's similar to the Template:Mainpageleft and in a more prominent place. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 12:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

== Technical issue ==

Mr. Schlafly, there appears to be a problem with the SVG (scalable vector graphics) rendering engine. I uploaded an image from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye_en.svg Wikimedia Commons] but it doesn't show properly [[:Image:Schematic_diagram_of_the_human_eye.svg|here]]. I have converted the image to PNG but I would like to upload other SVG images. I believe that different SVG rendering engines are available for the Mediawiki software. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 08:35, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

==Further Hacking Attempts==

Someone's still up to the "request new password" game--according to the mail sent to me, from 67.159.23.75. Just a FYI. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:15, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

I also got the "phishing" mail, from 92.16.2.122. And I'm not a sysop or VIP or anything like that. So someone is phishing. This happens all over the web, as I'm sure you know.

I would suggest putting up a very visible notice on the login page (and the new account page as well) saying something like "We will never reset or ask for your password. If you get email that says your password has been reset, or asking for your password, it is not from us and you should ignore it." Banks routinely send out notices of this sort ("we will never send you email asking you to verify your account information"). [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:38, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

==What I was talking about...==
I found the links that have to do with what I was trying to explain last night.
* [http://www.doxpara.com/ DNS Checker]
* [http://www.opendns.com/ OpenDNS - Providing a Safer and Faster Internet]
These links were mentioned in a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJuJKwbyVSI YouTube video by Chris Pirillo]. In the video, he talks about the recent breaches in DNS. 
Hope this helps. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because people listen to what I say?]] 12:28, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

: Fascinating stuff. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== More hacking attempts ==

From 67.159.23.75 and 79.73.176.222.

On this subject, I think perhaps we should start reporting these privately so as not to give the people doing it the attention they crave. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:24, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== parodist reponse ==

i posted my response on my talk page.. sorry about the confusion :( --[[User:Qprime|Qprime]]

== New template ==

I just created this. Let me know what you think:

[[Template:Parodist_article]]

I think it'll help with keeping tabs on and correcting this stuff. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:45, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

: Looks good. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hasty Block ==

I was browsing the recent changes and saw [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Krazorian this block]. After looking through his [[Special:Contributions/Krazorian|contributions]], I came to the conclusion that it must have been a mistake. Just thought you ought to know. [[User:ChristopherH|ChristopherH]] 10:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

: You're right. I apologize ... I confused his edits with that of another user. I'll unblock him now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

::Yet another reason for using real names, or at least memorable handles. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:02, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bull**** ==

Mr. Schlalfy, through an edit conflict I accidentally recreated a page that you just deleted. Please delete it again. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:28, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== On the password "hacking" ==

Seems like it's just someone being a jerk. There's no harm being done as the reset password doesn't go anywhere except the user's own email and the temporary passwords just expire if not used. Perhaps some sort of security/anti-bot feature (I suspect someone's set up an automatic program that goes through the list of usernames and requests a new password for each of them - amazing what these people do with all the spare time they have) can be put in place to slow them down and maybe have them lose interest in this foolishness. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:15, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

==What kind of academic that atheist guy is==

Andy, I think we've settled on an approach to [[Richard Dawkins]]. He "holds a chair", but that doesn't make him a "real professor".

To make an analogy, [[George W. Bush]] might decide to appoint me attorney general, so I can go after all those kids trashing our website - but that wouldn't make me a [[lawyer]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:01, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

==Ayn Rand==

Hi Andy, I was wondering if you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand, and if so, what is your opinion of her work? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 22:26, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

: Ayn Rand misleads many young people, particularly males. They are misled into being anti-marriage and pro hurtful behavior. It takes years for some to see through the superficial appeal of her [[atheistic]] and misguided philosophy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

In what sense to you believe that Rand is opposed to marriage or supports hurtful behavior? Why exactly do you say that her philosophy has "superficial appeal"? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:20, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

: Rand pushed the standard libertarian philosophy, which is inherently hostile to marriage. The libertarian philosophy and marriage are inherently contradictory.

: There is a superficial logical appeal to the libertarian philosophy that appeals more to young males than to anyone else who realizes that life is not a set of individual islands.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Onanism

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:51:25 GMT

DLerner: removed signature template as per PJR's request

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

''It is a dishonest way for a male to prevent the pregnancy of a woman.''

What the bloody hell are you writing? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:05, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: The only honest ways of a pregnancy not happening are if fertilization naturally fails or you abstain from sex altogether. The Biblical story of [[Onan]] documented his dishonest and sinful act of engaging in sexual union with his brother's wife but "spilling his seed" to prevent pregnancy. God punished him for that deceptive avoidance of one of the purposes of sexual congress, especially since it was his duty to bear his dead brother's child. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:28, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:JamalG

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:51:03 GMT

DLerner: removed signature template as per PJR's request

{{welcome|JamalG}}[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:03, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not exactly the kind of person CP like to have around, opinion-wise, but I try to express different points of view in a constructive way. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:54, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:50:13 GMT

DLerner: removed signature template as per PJR's request

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:46:43 GMT

DLerner: removed signature template as per PJR's request

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else.
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:42:00 GMT

DLerner: /* My recent block */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else.
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I agree that the comment that Bugler picked up on does not constitute a threat. However, I consider calling the police "fascists" to be name-calling rather than ideology. You do not have the freedom to say whatever you like on this site; the "free speech" guarantee does not apply in places such as private web-sites. I support DeanS in the case of this block. And you are on your way to getting one from me, for not resolving the matter of your signature template that I told you about on your talk page more than a week ago and Ed Poor has reminded you of since. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:30, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::I did not did I call ''all'' police fascists, and even if i had, so what? Yes, name calling is against our policy, but I did ''not'' call ''DeanS'' a fascist, nor did I attack him for his beliefs, why then do '''I''' get blocked?. Of course I don't expect to be able to say ''whatever'' I want, in fact, since children use this website, it is ''against the law'' for me to write ''whatever'' I want, I can't write obscenity. (Not that I have any desire to...). I had forgotten about the signature template, but rest assured I will get onto it right away, thank you for a reminder where others would have given a block. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Gilead

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:30:47 GMT

DLerner: added Hebrew

'''Gilead''', in [[Hebrew]] '''גלעד''', refers to a place of witness, testimonial, or spiritual significance.<ref>Genesis 31:21</ref> The place "Gilead" may refer to two different places (areas of [[Judea]]), or the term may also refer to a person from the Bible.

The famous spiritual, "There is a Balm in Gilead," sings of the healing properties of the holy land, and the connection obtained there with [[God]].

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Geography]]

Devaluation

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:27:00 GMT

DLerner: bold, will add examples when I have the time/energy/patience

'''Devaluation''' is a [[government]] policy to dilute the value of its [[currency]], typically by printing more of it. The reasons for this can include helping voters (like farmers) who are in debt by reducing the real value of their obligations, or helping the government itself pay back loans.

Sometimes devaluation is done to increase exports and decrease imports, thereby reducing a balance-of-payments trade [[deficit]].

==Historical examples==

[[Category:Economics]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:19:09 GMT

DLerner: /* My recent block */ reply to Bugler, Thank you for complimenting my intelligence, I can never get enough of that LOL

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else.
:::DLerner, ''I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse)'' sounds suspiciously like a threat. My strong advice to you is to drop this, and devote your considerable energies and intelligence to constructive additions to this project. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::::<in order> Bugler, I assure you it wasn't a threat, it was mainly written because my blocker has so far been the only to respond, as is his right, to my complaint; and even if it ''were'' a threat, what could I possibly do if it was ignored? Come on! I've been here almost as long as you have and I'm still not allowed to night edit (despite me living in Australia...). Thank you for the compliment, but since this is not the first time that I have been blocked for disagreement, I find it difficult to simply let go. And this isn't strictly out of a personal quest for justice, (though I would be lying to say that it's entirely impersonal), if protest isn't made early against abuse, it will eventually be so rampant that -like at the ending of [[Animal Farm]] you won't be able to tell the pigs from the humans. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:19, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:32:01 GMT

DLerner: /* My recent block */ reply. I'm writing this so the OTHER admins should be aware -and act- against this abuse

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

:DLerner, If you think it is acceptable to defend anarchists and call police fascists, you are wrong. I'm not going to tolerate that talk here on Conservapedia. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 06:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::It is not up to ''you'' whether free speech and the right for individual opinion is allowed. Your block did not follow the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|rules]] or even the vague and unilateral [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]]; The block was ''entirely'' on ideological grounds. I believe that police (no doubt under orders from their superiors) can sometimes act in a fascist manner, you don't. I don't suggest that you should be blocked, or stripped of your sysop powers, and I would be a hypocrite if I did! Furthermore, my remarks (which by the way, never defended anarchists) were in the context of a ''debate'' (albeit on the Main page talk, where as you most certainly are aware, the news of the day is discussed with opinions running through the gamut of opinions).
::If you cannot tolerate free expression and differing opinions, then I humbly suggest that this project is not right for you. It it not your job to be the ideology police, nor anyone else. The symbol of our project is the flag of the United States of America, whose ''first'' amendment ''ensures'' free speech and opinion. Unless the policy wonks here come up with [[Conservapedia:Alien and Sedition act]], I think I can say what I want about the government, military, police, fire brigade, CDC or anything or anyone else.

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

DLerner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:51:05 GMT

DLerner: /* My recent block */ new section

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::Philip, you are entirely wrong - about Daphnea, about Jirby, and, incidentally, in the unfounded and unwarranted accusations and attacks on my character that you have made on this site. I suggest with respect that you do not have a 'nose' for troublemakers and saboteurs. I can think of no other reason - bar misplaced liberalistic sentimentalising - why you stand up for them. And I also suggest with respect that this may be a reason why Conservapedia is locked overnight (EST) despite CP having an active Antipodean admin - because you would let vandals, parodists and socks have the run of the place. Frankly, you'd be better off sticking to your dinosaurs and letting sysops who do have a 'nose' get on with the job without interference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bugler, please be careful with how you address those who Andy has placed in a position of authority. While Philip's choice to unblock Dean's block was unfortunate, even Dean is careful in his wording not to denigrate Philip. Philip has done much for this site and he should earn respect based upon his contributions even if there are issues where you personally don't agree with his decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::::::OK, LT, point taken. I will reply in a positive spirit by saying that I think DeanS is a very fine sysop, who has done a huge amount to make Conservapedia what it is, and I believe that the very least he deserves is for his peers to support rather than denigrate him. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:43, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, I thank you for stating so frankly that you believe that it's okay to block based on, ummm, your "nose". It's normal, however, for people enforcing rules to base their decisions on ''evidence''. I'm also disappointed at your lack of imagination—that you are unable to think of another reason for me defending some editors, such as me wanting to be fair and just. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:Philip, the nose is a useful organ for sniffing out trouble and troublemakers. To suggest that I would block solely on this basis without evidence of troublemaking is at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. And any sysop or admin who waits for troublemakers to present a neatly packaged file of vandalism, disruption and damage on his or her desk, for him or her to peruse and muse over for a while while considering a fair and just response, is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:26, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I agree that a nose, a gut feeling, or etc. is a useful way of detecting trouble and troublemakers. Contrary to your opinion, I have detected troublemakers the same way myself.
:: However, you are now indicating that one only uses the nose to ''detect'' troublemaking, but finds other ''evidence'' before blocking. The problem with that claim, apart from the fact that you didn't previously make it (more on that in a moment), is that it doesn't seem to be true. I was responding to ''your'' comment that a "nose" is needed, and that I didn't have one. I was entitled to think that a "nose" is the ''only'' thing required, because I was never claiming that some editor was innocent simply because he didn't ''seem'' to be guilty to me; rather, because the ''evidence'' was lacking. (The ''evidence'' is what I've challenged you on before.) Therefore your comment about needing a nose, in context (even if unintentionally) was as a ''substitute'' for evidence. Given also that, as I said, the evidence has at times been lacking, I was quite entitle to read your comment as saying that the "nose" is ''all that is required''.
:: Conversely, I never claimed that it had to be a "neatly packaged file". I have on many occasions dug through edit histories and diffs in order to find the evidence. I suspect that Dean beat me to block [[user:JasonH|JasonH]] recently simply because I spent the time I did looking through the evidence (which is not to say that he didn't) (I spent perhaps 15 minutes looking through the evidence, and DeanS beat me to the block by less than a minute. So your characterisation of me as one who doesn't block without a "neatly packaged file" could hardly be further from the truth.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:11, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's not whether if you feel your block is justified, it is if you followed blocking policy. Last I saw, MYOB [http://www.conservapedia.com/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown IS NOT] a common block reason, though I remember you blocking quite a few editors with the block reason as "MYOB" with regards to questionable blocks on other users. The entire event could have been avoided if you weren't so rude to Jirby as to cause him to run to another administrator for help and explained in a respectful tone. Now you have to make this huge response and argue with another admin simply because you failed to show respect. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

: "''Jirby is not an innocent bystander''": Yet you fail to show that. Okay, so he complained about some articles. But perhaps those complaints were legitimate? Since when does complaining about articles in and of itself make one guilty?
: "''Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia''": Again, you have failed to show that he was not.
: "''...not complaining about another editor's block''": Why not? If we see injustice, it is our ''responsibility'' to do something about that.
: "''He is not "Minding his own business".''": So? There's no rule that says that he must.
: "''...I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing''": It's clear that you don't appreciate it, but that doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with it.
: "''To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.''": To me, he's (a) questioning an alleged injustice and (b) objecting to the way he was spoken to. Neither of which there is anything wrong with. You've provided no evidence of him making trouble, unless "troublemaker" means doing things that you don't like.
: "''I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place.''": Yet there is no rule that says that they should never have been involved in it in the first place, and he wasn't actually raising the original complaint with me anyway.
: "''To me, this contradicts Philip's statement''": Yet you have not shown any contradiction.
: "''To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that."''": Then I guess that we should abolish all ombudsmen, all anti-corruption bodies, and all police ethical standards bodies, because complaining about unacceptable behavior by those in charge amounts to "childish tattletale".
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

==="Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked"===
I won't touch this case directly, but am I the only one here who remembers that compassion is a virtue? Caring for fellow editors is a Good Thing. Is this "Mind your own business when you think that power has been abused" (which to me sounds like the exact opposite of compassion: "Look away") an actual rule here? --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:56, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:37, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::Who are you to judge who deserves compassion and who does not? Jirby obviously came to the conclusion that Impm deserved it, and he was warned and blocked for this display of compassion. This goes against the spirit of a community project, and I do hope that "Mind your own business" is not actually a Conservapedia rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:50, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::All societies require policing to prevent them from descending into anarchy. Conservapedia is no different, and it is surrounded by enemies who try to subvert its Conservative and God-fearing message by vandalism, subversion and attempts at damage, both overt and covert. People like DeanS are doing their best to protect this project. MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments. Do you think covert vandals deserve compassion? They are just being barred from a webite, not boiled in oil. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:57, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
::::This site has rules that should be enforced, and those who break these rules should be warned, blocked or banned. "Mind your own business" does not appear to be such a rule, and for a very good reason so. I am glad that we have sysops like Dean who enforce the rules, but the moment they arbitrarily enforce fake rules and create a "Look away and work - or face my wrath" atmosphere, I stop cheering them on. I support the police, but I won't cheer them on when they beat up and arrest the wrong guy under baseless charges just because "he struck me as a troublemaker in the past". If the users broke other rules, then they should be punished for breaking ''those rules'', not for violating some non-existent and unchristian rule. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:11, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would ask again that you consider the difference between doing your job, and being rude. Of course you need to be able to protect this site, of course there are vandles, but there is no reason for someone like DeanS to be rude to users. I felt his sting, and I think it is inappropriate for a sysop to act so rudely. There are plenty of ways to police CP without yourself becoming tainted by those who seek to discredit you. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 19:16, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

"''MYOB is not used indiscriminately, but aimed at those who seek to damage CP by endless, mindless quibbling, circular arguments, and continual interference in an attempt to bog down CP sysops and editors alike in a morass of petty arguments''": Apart from ascribing motive, which is difficult at the best of times, please note that none of that applied in this case. So you are effectively saying that DeanS was ''not'' justified in telling Jirby to mind his own business, because Jirby didn't meet those conditions. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
::''Au contraire, mon vieux.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Karajou's Abuse ==

I would like to inquire [[User:Karajou]]'s blocks, regarding three editors: Users Wisdom98, KevinM, and LardoBolger. Discussions (or lack thereof...) are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here, main page talk], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karajou here, Karajou's WP talk page], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again Karajou's CP talk page], and a small note [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wisdom89/Archive_8#I_saw_- here, Wisdom98's WP talk page].

*Wisdom98's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wisdom89 block log] shows he was blocked for infinite with the block reason: ''"Intimidating behaviour/harassment: occured off-site; supportive of the vandals and trolls who bully Conservapedia. You can edit in Wikipedia for all I care."'' which is against blocking policy rules. The only thing that can relate to the reason is that Wisdom98 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ed_Poor_2#Oppose opposed] Ed Poor's nomination of administrator at Wikipedia. So, if that's the case, Karajou clearly abused his powers to block someone who simply ''voted against someone else on another wiki.''
*KevinM saw the blocking (presumably) and confronts Karajou to explain his reasoning on his talk page (link is above, but [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&oldid=500170#Your_blocking_behavior_-_again here] for convenience). Karajou doesn't respond; instead, he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:KevinM blocks] KevinM for infinite.
*A bit of time passes and LardoBolger confronts ASchlafly about his statement regarding liberals and avoiding responsibility, so the issue with Karajou is brought up (http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/archive61#Account_blocks here) and ASchlafly fails to respond to back up his words, as usual. Karajou tries to explain the IP blocks and completely dodges the issue with Wisdom98, ultimately [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:LardoBolger blocking] the user for infinite as well, and deleting all traces of the user.
*This issue with Karajou and the three users who simply vied for sysops following rules, as well as any other case regarding abuse in the history of Conservapedia, shows no responsibility by anyone for their actions, especially ASchlafly (blatant and staggering hypocrisy) who ignores anything of the sort. In fact, he's making edits as this discussion above takes place. A select few, as seen above (Mr. Rayment), have the site's best interest at heart, and I applaud his efforts for striving to make it better. [[User:JamesLRay|JamesLRay]] 12:53, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:In order to censor this complaint, Bugler blocked the user with the false accusation of LIBEL! ROFL! I guess this will be yet another lost complaint of abuse! Blocked by a parodist, RIP James! [[User:TomKilt|TomKilt]] 16:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== Another Complaint about DeanS's abuse of power ==
I would like to lodge a complaint about the behavior of DeanS. Yesterday I made ONE edit on the Barack Obama article. ONE. Immediately after, I was blocked for not having my username be that of my first name and last initial. While this is recommended on the user creation page, it is not required. After discovering I could not edit his talk page to try and dicuss the block, I created another account to post on his talk page (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&oldid=504908#Block). I know this is technically against the rules (as are the rest of the accounts I created in an attempt to contact him, including this one), but otherwise I have no way to contact an admin to get this sorted. His reponse? He reverted the talk page and ignored my comlaint. I personally believe that the real reason I was blocked was because I was editing the Barack Obama article, not that my name was incorrect. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:I forgot, when this account is blocked, please do not block the IP. I am currently at a library and you will be blocking everyone here. [[User:Mobpdevijql5|Mobpdevijql5]] 13:25, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::Perhaps you should've thought of that before using the library computers to subvert your block(s). Now innocent people are being affected by your actions. Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 14:40, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::No, ''now innocent people are being affected by'' YOUR ''actions'', Jinx. ''Next time, think before you act. Actions have consequences.''
::::At least it's better than subjecting them to the drivel on this site. I would have only 2 accounts (I guess one blocked) if you and your staff had been reasonable, explaining when I asked for clarification. It seems your response is to block anyone who you deem to have possible different views. That definitely is a way to run a site that is designed to be "community driven" and "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". It's your site, run it how you want, but I can assure you you are just alienating people. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would still be interested in positively contributing to this site, however with the hostility against me from just asking for clarification I am not sure I would like to. [[User:Mobpdevijql6|Mobpdevijql6]] 15:14, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:In the event that you are blocked and wish to discuss the matter, the appropriate course of action is to email the Sysop directly and explain your situation. If the Sysop does not have his email enabled, you can then email any Sysop and the information would be passed along to Dean for his review. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:28, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

::That sounds nice - theoretically. --[[User:DirkE|DirkE]] 16:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree. In "theory" it could work. In reality, it just results in more problems. And why aren't sysops enabling their email? Heck, I do that whenever I sign up on a wiki, just as a matter of course. Emailing other sysops does not help, as I think "discussions" above show. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:44, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

== My recent block ==

DeanS blocked me on the 31st of August for ''"too much talk defending anarchists and calling police facists - take a break"''. As far as I know, blocking someone for ideology is unacceptable on this site. This was on [[Talk:Main Page]] not an edit war. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 05:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

West Side Story

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:05:30 GMT

DLerner:

'''West Side Story''' is a musical drama based on [[William Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]'' with music by [[Leonard Bernstein]], lyrics by [[Stephen Sondheim]] and book by [[Arthur Laurents]]. The Capulets and Montagues of Shakespeare's classic play are replaced with the Sharks and Jets, rival [[street gang]]s<ref>newly-arrived Puerto Ricans and second-generation Americans from white European immigrant families [http://www.filmsite.org/wests.html (Tim Dirks)] </ref>
in [[Manhattan]].

==Notes==
<references/>

==Parody==
*[http://www.westbankstory.com/ West Bank Story] - you'll laugh till you cry!

[[Category:Musicals]]

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:56:48 GMT

DLerner: bold messup

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'''Response to Ed Poor's comments in order''': I express my anger over ''these'' violations because some editors ''seem'' to be ''defending''(!) Pinochet. '''US Support''': So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a '''democratically elected''' leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). '''Transitioned to Democracy''': Almost two decades later.... '''Communists''': Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody here has defended Stalin... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:54:13 GMT

DLerner: reply to Ed

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

'''<Response to Ed Poor's comments in order>''' I express my anger over ''these'' violations because some editors ''seem'' to be ''defending''(!) Pinochet. '''US Support'': So what? It wasn't the first time the CIA meddled in another country causing chaos. Salvador Allende was a '''democratically elected''' leader, but since he was guilty of the indefensible crime of being a Socialist, the Nixon administration supported a military coup. (If I remember right, Colin Powell once referred to this act as a bad moment in our history). '''Transitioned to Democracy''': Almost two decades later.... '''Communists''': Much of my ancestry fled from Russia to come to the United States, so rest assured, I most certainly am angry about the human rights violations that happened (and are still happening...) there. Why than haven't I mentioned it? Because nobody defended Stalin... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:54, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Asterix the Gaul

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:37:45 GMT

DLerner: spacing

[[Image:Asterix_the_Gaul_cover.jpg|right|200 px|thumb|The cover on the English version.]]

'''Asterix the Gaul''' (French: ''Astérix le Gaulois'') is the first book of the Asterix series; it was released in 1959.

==Plot==

All Gaul is divided into three parts...no, four parts. One Gaulish village holds out against the Roman invasion, and no amount of fighting can subdue these Gauls.

Centurion Crismus Bonus, whos men are being constantly defeated by Gauls whom they outnumber four to one, decides that the Gauls must have some secret. Through a round of [[musical chairs]] he selects a spy named Caligua Minus, who is disguised as a Gaul that has been captured by the Romans. Asterix and Obelix spot the Romans with the "Gaul" and quickly free him, bringing him back to the village.

In the village, Caligua Minus persuades Getafix to give him the secret of their strength, whereupon Getafix gives him some magic potion. After the Gauls discover that he is a spy, he escapes.

Back in the Roman camp, Crismus Bonus learns about the potion from Caligua Minus and decides to acquire the secret, which will allow him to conquer Julius Caesar. His soldiers capture Getafix, intending to force him to make the potion.

A worried Asterix discovers that Getafix has been captured and slips into the Roman camp. Before being captured and thrown in with Getafix, he learns that Crismus Bonus intends to use the potion to acquire the imperial throne. Getafix agrees to make the potion, but instead brews a hair tonic which makes the Roman legionnaires' hair and beard grow very long.

A furious Crismus Bonus agrees to free the Gauls if Getafix gives him the antidote to the tonic (in reality there is no antidote; the effects wear off after several days). Getafix agrees, and makes some potion just for Asterix as well as the "antidote" (soup). By means of the potion, Getafix and Asterix escape, only to be recaptured by Romans led by Julius Caesar himself.

Asterix reveals that Crismus Bonus was attempting to overthrow Caesar by means of the potion. As a reward, Caesar frees the Gauls and sends Crismus Bonus and his men to Outer [[Mongolia]].

[[Category:Asterix]]

Referee

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:37:00 GMT

DLerner: fixed link

A '''referee''' is a person to whom the court refers a pending case to take [[testimony]], hear the parties, and report back to the [[court]]. A referee is an officer with judicial powers who serves as an arm of the court.

In [[Sport|sporting]] terms, a referee is a person who judges a match between opposing teams and issues penalties to offending players.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Referee

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:36:40 GMT

DLerner: sport

A '''referee''' is a person to whom the court refers a pending case to take [[testimony]], hear the parties, and report back to the [[court]]. A referee is an officer with judicial powers who serves as an arm of the court.

In [[sporting|Sport]] terms, a referee is a person who judges a match between opposing teams and issues penalties to offending players.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Civil War

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:34:53 GMT

DLerner: I'm fairly certain there have been more then these

A '''civil war''' is a prolonged armed conflict between groups that inhabit the same state. Typical civil wars are fought to replace a government or gain concessions from the government. In some cases, the government is not a party to the conflict.<ref>Malanczuk, 318</ref>

==Partial List of Civil Wars==

*Seventeenth Century
**[[English Civil War]]
*Nineteenth Century
**[[American Civil War]]
*Twentieth Century
**[[Russian Civil War]]
**[[Spanish Civil War]]
==Bibliography==
*Malanczuk, Peter. ''Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law,'' 7th ed. New York: Routledge, 1997.

==Notes==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:military]]

Randolph Churchill

DLerner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 12:33:34 GMT

DLerner: link

[[Image:Randolph_Churchill.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Lord Randolph Churchill]]
'''Lord Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill''' (1849 - 1895) was the third son of the seventh Duke of Marlborough and the father of [[Winston Churchill]]. He had a brilliant but brief career in British Parliamentary politics in the 1880s. An aggressive and effective debater, he attempted through his program of "[[Tory]] Democracy" to garner popular support for his [[Conservative Party]]. He became [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] in 1886, at the age of thirty-seven, but soon resigned following a party dispute. He died on 24 January 1895, seventy years to the day before the death of his son Winston.<ref>"Randolph Churchill" ''Churchill and the Great Republic'' The Library of Congress</ref>

==Further reading==
*'''Churchill, Winston Spencer M. P.''' "Lord Randolph Churchill" (Macmillan, New York; 1907). Entire text online at [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5477600 Questia]. Accessed 14 February 2008.
*'''Plumpton, John G.''' "The Writing of Lord Randolph Churchill" (1986) [http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=769 The Churchill Centre]. Accessed 14 February 2008.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom]][[Category:Political People]][[Category:Conservatives]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Churchill, Randolph}}

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

DLerner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:33:39 GMT

DLerner:

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

DLerner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:32:59 GMT

DLerner: angry reply

Talk:Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers

DLerner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:43:57 GMT

DLerner:

4 and 5 are too vague to be helpful. They are not concepts or principles, and I suggest replacing them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:As a teacher I would disagree. Perhaps they are not worded well, but teaching teens how to make decisions, and how to evalulate information in this world is critical to their becoming successful and moral adults. This site is a perfect example. Why is the information on this site valuable? We state that Wiki is biased, but how do we teach teens to figure that out for themselves? How do we teach teens the tools to say "ah, sex is not for me", rather than just parrot us. When teens parrot, they only know the answers to the question we provided. But when we teach them how to look at evidence with a critical eye, and say "fine so science says X, but how do we know it is true or not" - we do our kids in our schools a disservice. Critical thinking seems to be core here. So teaching that skill is far more important than just teaching what you or I or some other adult has found using "critical thinking". That's my 02 cents, anyhow. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:02, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
::Six is WONDERFUL. Something I wish I were more aware of as I watch my "babies" turn 9 and 6. gak!--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 13:22, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

4 through 7 are ineffective or worse. 4 and 5 can be interpreted any way anyone likes (making them useless), and 6 and 7 are not going to persuade any teenagers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:25, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:And 1-3 ''will'' persuade any teenagers? I know teenagers, it's hard to get them away from the tellie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I doubt you've taught 145 teenagers, as I have. Teaching the meaning of [[opportunity cost]] is effective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Most teens I've met (and I'll concede that I haven't yet taught 145), don't ''care'' about opportunity cost, (the same reason you objected to 6-7). That said, I agree that opportunity cost is a great life lesson, but also that some things are more important than money, (spending time with family even though you can be earning $$$). [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:43, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers

DLerner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:37:33 GMT

DLerner:

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

DLerner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:34:33 GMT

DLerner: I really hope you didn't mean it like that

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Noah Beauchamp

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:40:36 GMT

DLerner: restored material that was accidentally removed.

==Copied from Wikipedia==
Hello, read the rules. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:52, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I was told by an admin that I could post articles that I created on Wikipedia here without a problem. If some basic changes were made by others such as spelling and puctuation, I didn't think I'd have to change them back to my mistakes. The current article has stayed basically the same since I wrote it. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::You may want to include a small statement on each article talk page as to authorship, where it came from, etc. There's no problem with this one. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, did you used to be Pichka? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:17, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, It was the name of a Russian spacecraft but I changed my username because it meant something dirty in another language. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::What? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Noah Beauchamp

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:25:11 GMT

DLerner:

==Copied from Wikipedia==
Hello, read the rules. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:52, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I was told by an admin that I could post articles that I created on Wikipedia here without a problem. If some basic changes were made by others such as spelling and puctuation, I didn't think I'd have to change them back to my mistakes. The current article has stayed basically the same since I wrote it. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry, did you used to be Pichka? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:17, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, It was the name of a Russian spacecraft but I changed my username because it meant something dirty in another language. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::What? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Noah Beauchamp

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:17:46 GMT

DLerner: /* Copied from Wikipedia */

User talk:Jimmy

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:15:11 GMT

DLerner: /* Admin warning */

Take a better look to the the article [[Gettysburg Address]]. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gettysburg_Address&diff=339689&oldid=289268 --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

: We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment '''was NOT''' clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.

::You started writing:

:::''The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain '''the phrase''' attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.''

::And the phrase was: ''"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."''

::That phrase '''was''' in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: '''"under God".'''

::I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?

::About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.

:::It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::: Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.

::::: I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy&oldid=339685]--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: ''On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared [[Gettysburg Address]] and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, '''under God''', shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."'' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

==Your editing==
Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?

:My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.

:Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
:- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
:- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
:- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
:- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
:- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.

:See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==Your block==
You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines.
When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

==No problem, Jimmy==

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Thanks and sorry! ==

Your support after my block was much appreciated! I do apologize for getting you blocked, though. :( --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 22:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
: Not a problem. No need to apologize for my block, it wasn't your fault. I have the feeling I'll be blocked again shortly. Wish me luck. --Jimmy 00:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Humour ==

I like the humour on your user page. So true my friend, so true
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:23, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks. At times, laughter is the best medicine.--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 00:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Where laughter fails, whisky will prevail!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Copying from Wikipedia ==

All you did was change or omit a few words. You used many of the same phrasings and almost exactly the same sentence-by-sentence layout.

Your first paragraph:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case # 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States federal court against a public school that required teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origins of life. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism and the school's policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Lemon Test.
</blockquote>

From Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
</blockquote>

Your second paragraph:
<blockquote>
The plaintiffs, eleven parents of students at the Dover Area School District, sued the school board over a statement in support of Intelligent design that was to be read aloud during science classes when evolution was taught. The parents were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center.
</blockquote>

Wikipedia:
<blockquote>
Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center
</blockquote>

Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Most likely it's [un]intelligent design.

As far as other edits you've made, yes, I have had a problem with some of them when they are obviously meant to undermine the purpose of Conservapedia. I replaced your quotes about atheism to fit the intended purpose of the article. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:07, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== If you don't like it, leave ==

You're welcome to leave CP if you don't like it. Just a suggestion. You probably will find your edits under heavier scrutiny by myself and others from now on anyway and I doubt you'll enjoy that.

In any case, don't post to my talk page anymore. You and your rhetoric are not welcome there. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

==Comments deleted from Jinxmchue's talk page posted here for posterity==

Your reasoning for removing my edit is quite inane in my honest opinion. The only thing I remotely 'copied' from Wikipedia was the format of the article. It is plainly obvious you did not look at all of the references. If you did, then you would have discovered that every word I wrote was paraphrased from the references or written by myself. Replacing my article with the misleading, opinionated, and unreferenced factoids is doing this encyclopedia a disfavor.
Judges Jones never admitted being an activist judge. The reference in the original article was a glaring example of the authors misrepresenting Jones' actions and words. I even provided a reference saying that he denied being an activist judge. My edit even left in the solitary reference from the original article so I could reference the criticism Jones received.

The original article contained five items of fact and opinion and only one, the opinion, was backed up with a reference. Your revision resulted in a violation of the first commandment about everything in articles being 'true and verifiable'. So much for you making Conservapedia a 'reliable resource'.

I made a request for change over two months ago and nobody said a word. I made a change to an article and listed the required references then you come along and base your revision on something that was obviously not thought out. I'd like to think a responsible editor would ask questions instead of making wholesale deletions without any discussion. Since you claim to be the 'rightful leader of Conservapedia', maybe I shouldn't direct my opinions to another administrator and instead just try and reason out this disagreement between the two of us. --Jimmy 20:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As an editor, you are not very impressive. I followed the Conservapedia Manual of Style almost to the letter. The fact that Wikipedia and Conservapedia have similar formats apparently did not cross your mind. My article contained information the WP article did not and vice versa. It also included references that mentioned every fact outlined in the first paragraph, something the WP article did not. Just because an article looks like it may have been copied from WP doesn't mean it has been.

Conservapedia's detractors call this 'trustworthy encyclopedia' Idiotopedia, and you are giving them plenty of ammunition. Your revision resulted in an article that is completely untrue and unverifiable; and in my honest opinion, a very stupid article at that. One of my main goals is to correct these dumb articles so Americans don't look bad. It looks like I am failing. If you insist on making the job of Conservapedia's critics that much easier, go right ahead, you are accomplishing plenty. --Jimmy 19:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a problem with my editing. Instead of removing my Atheism quotes and replacing them with your own, why don't you just add yours? Your opinion of 'better' leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid. --Jimmy 20:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kitzmiller edit==
I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
::I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

== NASA ==

Which images do you want? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:Anythng suitable for the article, not very fussy. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==Tyrants behind keyboards?==
::The user that you chose to interfere in someone else's business was blocked because he chose to engage in an edit war with an admin involving personal attack. If he brought evidence which supported his claim and engaged in dialogue respectfully, the block would not have happened. And if certain users think they can throw their weight around here; if certain users think they can engage in edit conflicts on a whim; if certain users think they can demand to place whatever they want on this site, they have another thing coming to them. You were removed for three days for interfering in what was never your business as well as the above. If anyone is trying to play tyrant, it is you. You came to Conservapedia with an agenda to interfere with the conservatism on this site; you came here to push your own liberalism. It's stopping now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== RE ==

If you take a look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] you will no doubt notice that a {{fact}} template makes something have much less force and seem untrue. If you wish to find a source, find a source and make this a better place. Don't make it seem untrue. The Clinton comment is incorrect as Clinton was not president when the data was given. --[[User:TrueValues|TrueValues]] 20:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

:I am well aware of the Wikipedia bias article. I am also well aware of the commandments of this encyclopedia that state every claim must be referenced. I am also well aware of the guidelines that state citation tags can be used for unreferenced claims. The question is why are you making such a fuss over matters that can be readily remedied by providing a reference --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

::Ed Poor blocked me for a week because I refused to knuckle under and believe a lie that was posted at the ''Liberal Creep'' page. The following item was deleted from the talk page in question and is posted here for posterity. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 22:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, '''"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3.''' Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the ''"Isaac Newton's religious views"'' article.

::Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

==Admin warning==

*Your attitude is making me wonder

See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Um, I think he hasn't edited since February... (About the time he was eternally blocked...) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::Then who wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=494880 this]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I've been in Australia too long, I got the eight and the two mixed up.... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

* Revision as of 12:37, 2 August 2008 (edit) (undo)

What eight? It says '''August''', man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:Pardon me, but if one were to go up to "my preferences", select the "Date and Time" tab the options allow for a "numerals ONLY" date format. I'm guessing this is what DLerner has set for his browser. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::Correct. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Noah Beauchamp

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:52:38 GMT

DLerner: New page: ==Copied from Wikipedia== Hello, read the rules. ~~~~

==Copied from Wikipedia==
Hello, read the rules. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 11:52, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Jimmy

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:26:06 GMT

DLerner: /* Admin warning */ sig

User talk:Jimmy

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:25:53 GMT

DLerner: /* Admin warning */

User talk:Jimmy

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:20:08 GMT

DLerner: /* Admin warning */

Galileo Project

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:16:47 GMT

DLerner: link

The '''Galileo Project''' was a [[NASA]] mission of [[space exploration]] that involved sending a [[satellite]] to [[Jupiter]]. The mission was named after the famous astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]].

==Launch==
Galileo was launched from the shuttle Atlantis (OV-104) in October, 1989. It was launched using a small booster rocket with insufficient power to reach Jupiter, requiring the astronauts to "borrow" energy to send it to it's destination.

==Journey to Jupiter==
Due to the lack of sufficient fuel to reach Jupiter, Galileo was given a flight plan nicknamed "VEEGA" for "Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist.", where it would slingshot once around [[Venus]] and twice around [[Earth]] in order to reach Jupiter.

==Arrival at Jupiter and [[probe]] launch==
In July, 1995 the Galileo spacecraft launched a probe to begin a solo flight into Jupiter.

Five months later, the probe sliced into Jupiter's atmosphere at one-hundred-six-thousand miles per hour. It slowed, released its parachute, and dropped its heat shield. As the probe descended through ninety-five miles of the top layers of the atmosphere, it collected fifty-eight minutes of data on the local weather. The data were sent to the spacecraft overhead, then transmitted back to Earth.

To get into orbit around Jupiter, Galileo used it's main engine in a precise maneuver.

On December 7, 1995 Galileo began its prime mission: a two-year study of the Jovian system.

Galileo traveled around Jupiter in elongated ovals --- each orbit lasting about two months. By traveling at different distances from Jupiter, Galileo sampled different parts of the planet's extensive magnetosphere. The orbits were designed for close-up flybys of Jupiter's largest moons.

To keep track of Galileo's journey, each orbit was numbered, and named for the moon that the spacecraft encountered at closest range. During orbit "C-3" for example --- the third orbit around Jupiter --- Galileo flew near the moon Callisto.

The data collected on Jupiter and the moons are stored on the on-board tape recorder. During the rest of the orbit, the data was sent to Earth using the low-gain antenna. At the same time, measurements are made of Jupiter's magnetosphere and transmitted back to Earth.

The intriguing data gathered during the eleven orbits of the prime mission left many questions to be answered. Since Galileo obviously was capable of much more, its mission was extended.

==Extended Tour==
Galileo's prime mission ended on December 7, 1997. With more to learn, and the spacecraft in good health, NASA approved a two-year study called "GEM" -- the Galileo Europa Mission. For fourteen more orbits, the spacecraft focused on ice, water, and fire: the icy moon Europa, which might have an ocean; Jupiter's thunderstorms; and the fiery volcanoes of Io.

The spacecraft came so close to Europa that if there were something there the size of a school bus, Galileo would have detected it. The additional observations of Europa supported the theory that an ocean of water currently exists below the surface. NASA began considering plans for future missions to orbit Europa, and perhaps to send a lander.

Approaching Io - Jupiter's innermost moon - meant surviving Jupiter's intense radiation, so these encounters were saved until last. When radiation upset the spacecraft's computer, engineers worked all night to get them back on line. But Galileo came through again, and even discovered a lava fountain erupting on Io.

These successful flybys led to another exciting mission - the Galileo Millennium Mission, extending into 2001. The data was collected on Io and Europa, and studies made of the effects of radiation on a spacecraft close in to Jupiter. The Cassini spacecraft, on its way to Saturn, swings by Jupiter in late 2000 and for a few weeks, both spacecraft observe the giant of our Solar System.

==End of mission==
The Galileo spacecraft's 14-year odyssey came to an end on Sunday, Sept. 21, when the spacecraft passed into Jupiter's shadow then disintegrated in the planet's dense atmosphere at 11:57 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. The Deep Space Network tracking station in Goldstone, Calif., received the last signal at 12:43:14 PDT. The delay is due to the time it takes for the signal to travel to Earth.

==External Links ==
[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/index.html/ NASA's Project Galileo site]

[[Category:Space Exploration]]

Talk:Kissing

DLerner — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:05:57 GMT

DLerner: /* Comments */

Can this be unlocked? The administrator who locked it seems to be inactive now(?). I just started composing an article for this without realising there was a lock against creation. I assume the block was because of the sexual aspect of kissing. However, there are many facets to the subject, so I don't think it's helpful to just keep it blank. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:32, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

:You can paste your article text below. If an admin likes it, he'll move it to the article page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:50, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
::"What facets?" Well, kissing babies, for one. Both by politicians and their close relatives. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:07, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed text ==

'''Kissing''' is the action of pressing one's [[lips]] against something or someone as a sign of affection.

The meaning of a kiss can vary considerably. Kissing on the mouth is a private and intimate expression of love and desire by courting or married couples. Kissing somebody on the cheek or forehead is a sign of affection, for example between family members. In some formal settings, gentlemen are expected to kiss the hand of a lady when introduced. Kissing a ring on the hand of a bishop or royal is a sign of respect or devotion. There is a longstanding [[Roman Catholic]] tradition of kissing the [[Pope]]'s ring in this way.

People sometimes kiss inanimate objects such as their own possessions as an eccentric display of affection or gratitude to them. Prostrating oneself and kissing the ground can be an expression of relief shown by those returning to their homeland after a long absence. Pope [[John Paul II]] was noted for kissing the ground on arrival at various airports on his Papal visits.

Kissing has been practiced throughout human history, in virtually all cultures of the world. Humans are believed to be the only creatures that kiss, although mouth contact is observed among the courtship rituals of some mammals and birds, including pigeons.

Kissing people of the same sex is [[taboo]] in many cultures because of its association with [[homosexuality]]. However, in some European countries, including France and Italy, it is common to greet friends of either sex with a kiss on the cheek as a sign of platonic friendship. This was also customary in Biblical times, when [[Judas Iscariot]] used a kiss as the signal to have [[Jesus]] arrested.

[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:20, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

==Comments==

:Wow, nice succinct overview! One minor quibble - using the phrase "lovers and married couples". Can you think of a way around the word "lovers"? I'm trying to come up with one, but the best I have so far is the horribly clumsy "pre-married"! Oh, and re: "object kissing", would it be worth mentioning the Godfather thing of kissing his ring? And don't people kiss the Pope's ring as a token of respect? And lastly... is not prostrating oneself and kissing the ground of one's homeland a common expression of those who have been under forced absence for a time? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:27, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you. I've tweaked it slightly - see above. Make any further changes you think would improve it. Let's hope it gets copied to the article page. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:57, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

The pretense that it's never erotic is an obstacle for inclusion.

So is the insinuation that there's an irrational taboo about men, which seems to justify homosexuality. Please write about something else. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 05:35, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:I have not pretended that kissing is never erotic. See first paragraph: "Kissing on the mouth is a private and intimate expression of love and ''desire'' by courting or married couples". Change this to "sexual desire" or "erotic desire" if you think that it really needs to be spelled out. I could certainly write more on the subject of kissing as erotic, but witheld from doing so on the basis that this is intended to be a family-friendly encyclopedia.

:I have endeavoured to discuss that kissing is not ''always'' erotic. This ties in with the subject of same-sex kissing. I have stated that this can be homosexual, and is taboo in many societies because of this. Most people would agree that this is true and this taboo does exist. I have made no comment or insinuation whether this is rational or irrational.

:I have mentioned that kissing (including same-sex kissing) is common in some cultures (both contemporary and historical) as a platonic sign of friendship, blessing or respect. This is also indisputably true, and I think that it should be mentioned. Whatever our opinions on same-sex kissing within our own society, we must recognise that it has not ''always'' necessarily been sexual, in order not to misinterpret biblical passages or historical accounts which relate to one man kissing another in a non-sexual context. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 09:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Forget same-sex, ''family members'' kiss each other (usually on the cheek, but sometimes more) just for hello/goodbye. Ed's right, kissing is usually erotic, so I can definitely understand if the majority of kissing would be non-family-friendly, but non-erotic kissing (especially on the cheek) isn't uncommon. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I dunno about the "usually" thing. Not to get too graphic, but the dividing line might be open vs. closed mouth kissing - it's easy enough for this article to be about the former. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:13, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It looks like a pretty good overview to me. Neither do I see a "pretense that it's never erotic"; rather, the topic has been addressed in a family-friendly way. And there's no justification of homosexuality in the proposal, although I'm not sure that the "taboo" against blokes kissing on the lips is solely due to homosexual connotations. I support making this the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:19, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:What he said. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 08:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:JamesRa

DLerner — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:19:56 GMT

DLerner: /* Stop your vandalism */ new section

hi

== Stop your vandalism ==

I've already reported you

User talk:HenryS

DLerner — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:17:06 GMT

DLerner: /* Please unlock my page */

<center>''Complain below, please''</center>

==Likely vandal==

Hi Henry. [[User:NNSTK17]] seems to be a vandal. Please look at his edit history. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks. Blocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:08, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks :) -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:14, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==Unblock reason==

LOL @ ''18:44, 16 July 2008 HenryS (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked AKjeldsen (Talk | contribs) ‎ (User is begging and whining to be unblocked. )'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:18, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== [[Hippocratic Oath]] ==

Henry, Why did you revert my edit to [[Oath of Hippocrates]]?
# The entire section is about people who are ''critical'' of the oath. It makes sense to call the section "Criticism" instead of the watered down "Views".
# "'''Some''' Christian doctors '''may not like''' this oath" — That's just deliberately weak liberal claptrap. Do you really believe that a ''devout'' Christian can "solemnly swear to Apollo and Asclepius" — [[pagan]] Roman Gods?! What happened to "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me?" My edit just removed the liberal, cultural-relativist POV from that sentence. Look at the history, where [[Deborah]] has been watering it down and watering it down ever since the article was created.
# Other than that, I just made some links to other articles — which you also reverted.
Can I have your permission to edit the article again for these reasons?
[[User:GeorgeM|GeorgeM]] 11:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:34, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

== Danish Writers Group ==

Hi, what's that group? Can I take part in it? I'm not a Dane, but I'm a Honorary Dane. [[User:Cacatio|Cacatio]] 18:33, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
:The DWG writes Danish content for the encyclopedia. It is a sort of "wikiproject" but more sophisticated. Yes, please do take part, all the other members are lazy and I am too busy being important to be bothered to write content. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 18:36, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Please unlock my page ==

From recent edits I see your up and about, could you please unlock my user page? Thanx

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:14, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

תודה רבה

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:17, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:HenryS

DLerner — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:14:14 GMT

DLerner: /* Please unlock my page */ new section