Difference between revisions of "User talk:DamianJohn"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
((Obvious trolling))
(I did what you asked for.)
Line 118: Line 118:
==I did what you asked for.==
==I did what you asked for.==
: Good, I hope you will be a productive member of the group.  Which one were you?  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:12, 6 January 2013 (EST)
: Good, I hope you will be a productive member of the group.  Which one were you?  --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:12, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Revision as of 21:12, 6 January 2013

Hi Damian, you joined conservapedia before me however let me welcome you! The reason I post here is to let you know, as you created the page, that I made some changes to the Destiny Church page. Just a heads up! God bless.JJacob 22:14, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Got your message. A few people argue with some of my edits too, although I do try to go by what the better historians have to say.
Best wishes.Pluto 19:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

World history guide

The basics are just about done, huh?--JamesWilson 18:18, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah we have done pretty well. I'm gonna keep adding to the more advanced stuff when I get spare time. It is hard to get into a sentence or two basic information and something interesting as well. I have learnt a few things (eg I thought the Huns were from Germany - apparently not). --DamianJohn 22:53, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Yeah. I'll help you with that soon.--JamesWilson 22:54, 20 August 2011 (EDT)


Final of the Tri-Nations. Kiwi in Oz makes me nervous Aortuso 22:40, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes indeed. I think we should be too strong but you never know with those wily Aussies. Hosea Gear unlucky to miss out but still a pretty good team. --DamianJohn 23:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Extra privileges granted

Congratulations, the additional privileges of blocking and rolling back have been added to your account!--Andy Schlafly 16:11, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Courtesy and decorum

Please do not pick fights with other contributors. After you've made your point, move on. Rob Smith is an old friend. --Ed Poor Talk 22:15, 2 February 2012 (EST)

I am sorry Ed that you feel I have picked a fight with Rob. I do not think that is a fair appraisal of the situation. Rob and I have had a love/hate relationship for perhaps as long as you have, and he is well aware that his continual insulting of me and my country was inappropriate behaviour for THIS site. The matter has been dealt with and I am not entirely sure why you have chosen to fan the flames more. In any case I shall assume that you act in good faith and will let the matter drop; confused as I am by your input. --DamianJohn 00:22, 3 February 2012 (EST)

April 2012

Thank you for your contributions here at Conservapedia. May I ask, what inspired this? DMorris 01:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes of course. It was this edit by Andy Schlafly. There was some doubt raised subsequently about the correct interpretation of that posting, and although I personally was sceptical about Andy's claim, I thought it was appropriate that the views of the site leader and owner be reflected with the articles. We are, as I'm sure you appreciate, here merely at the leisure of the site owner. Our role is to facilitate the articulation of those views, whether we personally agree with them or not. --DamianJohn 17:26, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Well-deserved promotion

Congratulations - your account has been promoted!--Andy Schlafly 18:28, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

Context-free grammar

Hi Damian, You commented recently that Context-free grammar was currently a "a list of gobbledygook" (I agree with your comments).

I just about finished working on Chomsky hierarchy, which involves the same sort of things as Context-free grammar. Could I ask you to have a look at Chomsky hierarchy and let me know if it is perhaps a little more accessible to the average reader (any constructive comments are welcome). If you are happy with my style and level of writing, then I intend to turn my hand to rewriting Context-free grammar in a similar vein. RolandPlankton 15:15, 10 May 2012 (EDT)

Looks good to me. Well done. I have been very busy the past few weeks so I haven't been around. --DamianJohn 21:32, 12 May 2012 (EDT)


I unblocked this user because I was looking through his last 10 contributions or so, and couldn't figure out why he'd been blocked.[1]

Some appear to be reasonably constructive, fixing typos or changing British spelling to English: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

Others were talk page discussions just dealing with grammar: [24]

Those which added substantial content didn't appear particularly bad: [25]

Those are all pretty solid proofreading contributions for his last 20 contributions or so. I looked further and still can't see that he even made any particularly controversial edits. If so, can you point where they are at? I haven't heard anything from this NathanG person and have no idea if they're still around, I just was looking at people recently blocked to make sure the blocks were appropriate. I couldn't see anything indicating a proper block here.

You said "he is a self admitted liberal parodist." Well, whether that's true I have no idea. I certainly saw no indication this was the case from the contributions. Instead all I saw was the mark of a solid proofreader who was interested in helping the site with its grammar. I value proofreading pretty highly myself, the edits impressed me, frankly. And even if you were right that he's a liberal parodist, I thought we didn't ban off of ideology alone anyway, right? According to the guidelines?[26] I mean, we have debate pages so those who disagree can be talked with, right? Otherwise, what would be the point of just letting one side debate all the time?

Anyway, can you show me some sign the initial ban was appropriate? A BIG FACTOR for me was that the person who blocked him, TK, is now blocked[27], which made me really question whether the current block was still appropriate. --Joshua Zambrano 07:44, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

I have no idea what he could've done, to make you so angry at him, but just based on what I've seen from the proofreading contributions he's made, unless it was some really serious vandalism that he committed to get banned, I still think he should be given another shot. Those are pretty solid, un-controversial edits that make perfect sense to me. And the editor who blocked him is banned now anyway. You've got to admit, from my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to unblock him unless some really strong evidence shows up for why he got blocked in the first place. --Joshua Zambrano 07:51, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Anyway, I must be missing something here, there must be some evidence or reasoning I'm not seeing here, so I'll wait to hear back from you. Just help me understand why he got blocked in the first place, what he did wrong, and I'll agree with you the block was deserved if it was truly a serious offense. I've explained why I unblocked him, so if he did something to deserve the block, just tell me what it was and I'll just drop the issue. --Joshua Zambrano 07:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Wow. I just realized he was an ex-administrator just now. I just saw his block history, and saw he'd unblocked himself?[28] One thing that jumps out at me is that numerous people who had him blocked are now gone. Bugler and Fox were both blocked by TK. TK is banned. Philip J. Rayment says on his profile he's resigned. And BethanyS hasn't contributed since 2009. Jpatt unblocked him in the past saying he was blocked without reason. Ed Poor also unblocked him before but blocked him too. And Karajou just blocked him for 2 hour periods too.

So let me get this straight - a lot of the main people blocking him for long periods are now blocked themselves. His edits appear to have been pretty constructive lately.... And half the time it looks like he was blocking himself. I'm really confused. It looks like from the block summaries like it might've had something to do with personal comments. I can't figure out why he got blocked though. This is really confusing. --Joshua Zambrano 08:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

And why are Bugler and Fox blocked too? If TK is blocked, and he blocked them and NathanG - three different admins - then shouldn't we question whether his blocks were appropriate? I'd like to go back and re-examine this TK's blocks to make sure he didn't inappropriately have others blocked. --Joshua Zambrano 08:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

TK is not blocked out of choice, he has gone to pastures greener. In any case, the user you know as NathanG had a personal relationship with one of the senior admins, and I understand that relationship has now ended. You would be well advised not to interfere with NathanG's case. If he wants to come back he can go through the appropriate channels.
Can I suggest that you not go unblocking people from the past, you won't last long yourself. --DamianJohn 09:31, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
Alright, well, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. I suppose if NathanG wants to be unblocked they can contact someone about it. As for my unblocking people, I still believe most of the unblocks have been warranted.
If I don't last long, well, I don't last long. I write and edit as passionately as I do because I believe in what I'm doing. If I see people who shouldn't be blocked, I believe in trying to make things right, although as you can see, I have no intention of bypassing other moderators. I'm sure there are cases like this where I don't know what's going on, and thus if anyone dislikes an unblock, I'll discuss it out and try to understand what's going on. I have no intention of reverting any blocks by Andy or Conservative, period. I respect that it's his site and put his decisions foremost.
But as long as I've been given this block ability, I feel I have a responsibility to do what's right and make sure the right people have been blocked by other moderators, especially those like TK who are now banned. I can't just turn a blind eye and pretend bad blocks haven't happened. If the wrong people are blocked, it gives conservatives, Creationists, and Christians a bad name. It harms the entire site by preventing good people from helping make it better. Frankly, if I was the kind of person who just overlooked wrong things occurring, and didn't try to make things better, I'd still be at Wikipedia. --Joshua Zambrano 09:59, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
You don't know the context behind most of the blocks - for example, you seem to be unaware about what happened to TK. --DamianJohn 20:45, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
You're right. Like I said, I had no idea what I wandered into with this. But most of the blocks I reduced were not this controversial, I'd argue. That's why I appreciate you telling me that. Like I said, I'll just drop it over this NathanG issue. Still, I have to admit, I don't understand how TK can be as innocent as you say. Otherwise, why was it Andy who blocked him? That doesn't seem like somebody just leaving for greener pastures, but an offence serious enough to cause the site's owner to take action. Again though, I have no idea what's going on, and no idea if NathanG even wants to be unblocked, so I'm just dropping it at this time. I didn't realize I was opening up a can of worms. I'll have to be more careful and watch for users who might have more in-depth backgrounds from now on before unblocking. I should've looked a bit more carefully in NathanG's case. --Joshua Zambrano 22:00, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
Don't unblock anybody, thats not your job. Blocking powers are really just to help with vandals, not to unilaterally enforce your sense of justice. --DamianJohn 22:40, 25 July 2012 (EDT)


The phrase above, "British spelling to English", caught my eye and reminded me that in your User Page you apologise in advance for any lapses into British English (or words to that effect.) This matter was had out in 2006 or seven. It was agreed that British English is quite acceptable if used by editors brought up with that spelling if the subject is non-American or general talk. I would no more fly than type "Pearl Harbour". By the same token, I expect Americans to type "Sydney Harbour" and I have found that the great majority do. (Or did back in my day.) Cheers... AlanE 23:23, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Mistake Edit

Thanks for reverting that edit of mine. Bdor25 wanted me to respond to an edit he'd made and I tried re-adding it, but had to go back to an old version of the page to find it.[29] I edited that and accidentally removed newer material, sorry about that. Anyway, I'll just discuss the concerns with Bdor25 on his talk page instead of the main page anyway. --Joshua Zambrano 01:33, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

My block

Hello, and I apologize for what seemed to be an edit war. I attempted to discuss the edits made to the page in question, but was consistently getting no responses, which gave me the impression that there was no further disagreement. KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)

This site has a POV. You might not like it, but the articles reflect that POV. Stop being a pratt. --DamianJohn 11:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)
Yes, I realize that. My only contest was that the statement "same-sex marriage is prohibited in 'most religions'" was inaccurate and needed citation. Don't most fact based assertions need citation as outlined in the commandments? KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Most do, that conservative interpretations of religious doctrines are homophobic does not. When you say "most" I think you must be referring to religions like Hindu and Buddhism and traditional folk religions. I have known plenty of Hindis in my time and most of them carried their homophibic religious doctrine on their sleeve. If you can find a reliable cite for me to read that would bring the general statement that most religions are homophobic into question then provide it here. --DamianJohn 19:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)
I can't believe that I've got the burden of proof on this =/ but whatevs, I'll see what I can find. KatieKomori 23:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)
I am interested to read what you find. I should also note that I also am not always entirely enamoured by the POV of this site, although I always try to stick to articles that are POV free and I try to toe the line on issues that are controversial. There is no point in getting worked up about this, it's just the nature of POV wikis. Where an issue is likely to be controversial, I suggest you tread with the utmost care. My short block and mild rebuke of you was partially an attempt to ensure you weren't dealt with more severely by other editors, who may have just blocked you permanently for edit warring with Andy. --DamianJohn 01:36, 3 December 2012 (EST)
So how exactly does this POV thing work? I'm just trying to understand. Do some things that align with that POV not need citation as much as things that are at odds with the POV? I figured that the POV meant that it would just focus on findings that support it, but I thought they still needed citation. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how this whole POV thing works in terms of citation. KatieKomori 10:19, 3 December 2012 (EST)
That's pretty much it. I dunno if its quite as brazen as that, but essentially things that conform to the POV require less stringent citations than those that do not. That's true in general by the way. The maxim "We demand strict proof for opinions we dislike, but are satisfied with mere hints for what we're inclined to accept" is unfortunately extremely accurate. --DamianJohn 01:46, 4 December 2012 (EST)
That does not make for very reliable material...Just to be clear btw, I agree with a lot of the conservative ideology. I was hoping to help in the citation department of this site and help make for a more reliable conservative information resource. I wish there was room for us to further our conservative causes the honest way =/ KatieKomori 13:22, 4 December 2012 (EST)

(Obvious trolling)

It seems you have a history of picking fights with various users, please stop. It is also not very good practice to unblock yourself for such matters. Regards Dvergne 19:38, 1 December 2012 (EST)

It is perfectly fine when the block was done in bad faith. The issue about an edit to an article is being sorted out, and you are not helping. Who are you anyway? --DamianJohn 19:46, 1 December 2012 (EST)
The block was not done in bad faith, It was done to stop the incivility between you and KatieKomori including you calling her names. If you do not stop this behaviour I will block you again and raise this issue with Aschlafly Dvergne 20:06, 1 December 2012 (EST)
How about you raise the issue with Andy before you go around blocking longstanding contributors who are attempting to resolve an issue? In fact, why don't you go and bring it up with him right now? Either way I don't care. My posts were perfectly reasonable given the situation, and you are acting very much in bad faith. You don't fool anybody buddy. --DamianJohn 20:14, 1 December 2012 (EST)
For someone acting in good faith, you are using rather belligerent words. Chill bro. brenden 23:05, 1 December 2012 (EST)
Thank you for your input Brenden. I consider the matter closed. If you want to contribute to the solving of the dispute regarding the nature of relgious attitudes to homosexuality, I would encourage you to do so, either on the talk page itself or in the section above this one. --DamianJohn 23:29, 1 December 2012 (EST

Damian: I found that last edit positively Kennish. But well done against Sri Lanka by the way - and we won't mention the Rugby. AlanE 01:34, 2 December 2012 (EST)

Yes well, these things happen. As you can imagine it is pretty rare that our cricket team wins on the same day as our rugby team loses. As for sounding Kennish, well no comment, except to say that I entered into an edit war, resolved it, gave a mild rebuke to the person involved, proposed a solution, and then was blocked and accused of all sorts of nonsense by some guy whose been here all of 5 minutes. Now if people want to comment on the issue involved, fine, but coming to my page and looking to pick a fight is annoying. --DamianJohn 02:00, 2 December 2012 (EST)
As you say: yes well. We have managed three in a row for a change - four if you count that draw - but we will not mention the cricket! I do sorta understand on the other thing. AlanE 02:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
A magnificent fighting double century from Ponting to win the test in the last over of day 5? Oh ye of little faith. --DamianJohn 02:16, 2 December 2012 (EST)
There was a time. Not now. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than to be disappointed. There is no greater admirer of Ponting than I am. But 50-odd years of passionate watching, thinking, talking and suffering over the Game, (a lot of it, the watching at least, from the front of the top tier of the Noble Stand at the SCG over about 30 years of membership,) have taught me to be pessimistic. And you have to realise that I spent two days at Bellerive about this time last year. Ah, the shame of it!! AlanE 02:46, 2 December 2012 (EST)

I did what you asked for.


Good, I hope you will be a productive member of the group. Which one were you? --DamianJohn 21:12, 6 January 2013 (EST)