#1 on Google
Barack Hussein Obama, since the recent upgrade, has leap frogged ahead of Wikipedia's article, and Mr. Barack Obama's very own website to occupy the #1 position on Google. Thank you, it was a brilliant idea, and very well executed. It is someting you need to be very proud, and we all appreciate your excellent work.
If I can be of any futher assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. Rob Smith 22:25, 5 June 2011 (EDT)
Greetings. I was about to do another round of the revert war with ELWisty on the ham sandwich stuff, and then saw that you had already done it. I don't know what to do about him. This "revert willful ignorance" stuff is pretty outrageous. A year ago he would have been banned so fast his head would spin, but in this new era of a "kinder gentler Conservapedia" I want to show caution and forbearance first, and the door second. But, make no mistake about it, he is either a parodist or so ignorant that he doesn't know the difference. Next, I have to confront him on "willful ignorance" in the "Gabriel's horn" article. Spider-sense is tingling strongly.
But we all have more important things to work on. I want to get into the issue of objectifying block reasons, which is a big project lately, but I've been awfully busy. SamHB 13:05, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Sorry about the Madonna stuff
I've been editing the article a bit, and Legolas has chirped in to revert on a couple of occassions and his comments have all been directed toward EdPoor (and a bit over-the-top). It's been annoying. I think I've only commented about it in 2 places: 1) on Legolas's talk page and 2) on JamesWilson's talk page after he became involved and then commented on my talk page. I'll cease, though. Have a great day! SharonW 16:18, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I take your point (about the general tone of the RobS/Conservative argument), but of course I daren't redact comments made by sysops. I've been rather appalled, however, by all the users who really have no say in these matters shooting their mouths off. I think it hurts the site in a lot of ways, so I've been trying to clean it up. However, I'm sure you're right; I'll back off and leave it to the sysops. Jcw 10:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop
Another suggestion as far as being on a faster track of becoming a Sysop:
If you want to create a more collaborative spirit and increase the esprit de corps of Conservapedia, my suggestion at the present time is for a group of Conservapedians to pick a topic and then have editors create as many quality articles relating to that topic that are at least 500 words long. I would suggest that the articles not be stubs because that is not going to enhance the reputation of Conservapedia nor give it a sense of accomplishment. I created this project for a couple of editors who seemed interested in this topic: Conservapedia:Atheism Project I suggest creating a project with more widespread appeal because atheism is not on most people's radar in terms of the public at large - especially in the United States. Conservative 09:54, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
Well, I've been distracted, as have we all, by you-know-what lately, and it's time to pick up a few loose ends. This will mostly involve talk pages; I hope I'm not running close to 90/10 territory.
I need to answer ELWisty rather than leave him hanging. I think all he needs is a little guidance. He now seems to understand how to behave.
Also, there's this guy "JimJast" or whatever, posting stuff that is setting off my crackpot alarms. I've got to sound him out. He may need serious refutation. There is just so much about what he writes that is, well, wrong.
SamHB 22:46, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
The blocking policy refinement panel is convening on 8/17/11
The blocking policy refinement panel is beginning its proceedings on 8/17/11 here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Blocking_policy_refinement_panel_proceedings You can ignore my email asking you to invite people as I already did it. Conservative 02:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
Hi Iduan. I understand why you've changed RobS's block back and I have no intention of arguing over it - you have a lot more standing around here, so I'm sure you've done the right thing. However, I don't want you to think I was acting without reason. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to drag the details out in public, but since his demotion and blocking RobS has been on a spree, insulting CP's sysops in the basest fashion on the vandal wiki. If you say that doesn't warrant an infinite block I'll accept that, I just wanted you to know what my reasoning was. To be perfectly frank, I was - and am - somewhat angry at RobS's behavior. Jcw 19:12, 15 August 2011 (EDT)
The panel proceeding have begun here
The panel proceeding have begun here: Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. Conservative 12:56, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here
Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback HERE
Your assistance would be much appreciated. Conservative 15:06, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Welcome back and your account has been promoted!--Andy Schlafly 13:46, 22 November 2012 (EST)