User talk:Brenden

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dvergne (Talk | contribs) at 07:29, 3 February 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Brenden/Archive

Regarding the Anonymous page

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. Blessings of the Almighty on you :) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude...

....you'll love this guy's stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, MattyD 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

What the hell are you doing?

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! EJamesW 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.Brenden 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! EJamesW 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. EJamesW 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

[Comments retracted by poster]Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>brenden 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

EJamesW 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--Jpatt 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.brenden 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Editing

Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--Andy Schlafly 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks, Mr. Schlaflybrenden 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Conservative

If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. Karajou 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

Personal Honeypot

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. Wschact 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, Taj 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

Spambots

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. Dvergne 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)