User talk:JonG/Archive

From Conservapedia
< User talk:JonG
This is the current revision of User talk:JonG/Archive as edited by JonG (Talk | contribs) at 19:47, 20 December 2011. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Great work!

Thanks so much for helping us revert vandalism!JacobB 19:11, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Thank you. I've been here before, so I know annoying those little flies can be. JonG 19:12, 3 May 2010 (EDT)


Check other articles for the proper formatting that you asked about, Jon.

Generally its the link formatted with [xxxxx] with any comments added at the end, one space between the end of the link, and then all of that enclosed by the ref tag. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:18, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Ahh.. It has changed a little since I've been around. I was used to people putting the <title> content as the ref-link names. ~ JonG ~ 19:31, 3 May 2010 (EDT)
Here is the example I forgot to paste in for you:
<ref>[ Mayor James convicted]</ref> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TK (talk)
Yeah. That's exactly how I remember it. I was just in a rush earlier. Sorry. ~ JonG ~ 23:13, 3 May 2010 (EDT)


Thank you! Mistakes like this one happens. Only those who write nothing don't make mistakes. Sorry. --Joaquín Martínez 10:36, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

They would have to be mute and paralyzed and a zombie as well, because those who do not write can still make mistakes. ~ JonG ~ 19:36, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Once again, great work!

Once again, we're grateful for your work reverting vandals! JacobB 21:03, 2 June 2010 (EDT)


But being blunt, without being mean, is exactly what we do here, Jon. Sorry if you were embarrassed (I didn't check to see if the unsigned post was you), but being direct, without weasel words, is what conservatives do. Did you check and see that Phyllis is an admin? Anyway, case closed! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:18, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

Are you referring to the place where I pointed out someone's misspelling on a talk page? PhyllisS 22:52, 9 July 2010 (EDT)
Yes, yes. TK, I know she's an admin (I'm good friends with her). The question is, what does being an admin have to do with following rules? Ed Poor told me a while back not to point out misspellings on Debate, Talk, and User pages. ~ JonG ~ 07:15, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for letting me know about the apparent parodist. I will let Ashlafly police his talk page for the foreseeable future. As far as RobS, should have let ASchlafly intervene earlier as far as RobS as it would have been a better use of my time. I am moving on and attending to more important matters. Conservative 08:45, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

I was....

grammatically correct. But never mind.--Aortuso 01:23, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?‎

You may be interested in the debate here: Debate:Should Conservapedia develop a clear policy on standards for encyclopaedic and family-friendly content?‎ --SamCoulter 02:23, 23 September 2011 (EDT)


Did you read what I said on SeanS's talk page? I was blocked for being "sock of Human,", which I am NOT, and given that there is absolutely no way to appeal blocks here using multiple accounts is the only way to regain access. Sorry, but if you want people to stop creating new accounts you need to sort out the blocking system so people can have some hope of redress for unjustified blocks. It's not my fault; it's CP's. --BernhardtC 10:08, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Yes, I read what you said. If they say you're a sock, then they're basing it off of your IP address being shared with a previous user. ~ JonG ~ 10:17, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Then they need to have a serious think about their policy, because guess what? Thanks to the wholesale blocking of IP ranges, many people can only access CP through a proxy. Blocks should only be done on the basis of a user's behaviour, not the fact that someone else might have used the same IP address. It almost seems like CP doesn't WANT new editors... --BernhardtC 10:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

Material from User:Carlrogers

He wrote it on WP. I verified via email. Please see the talk page of that article. Thanks.--James Wilson 22:15, 17 November 2011 (EST)


Suspicious pedo

You've been convicted of child abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HendronI (talk)

You ignorant child molester

Bollix is english for bollocks you fiken pedo!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeneHnt121 (talk)

Actually "bollocks" is English for bollocks. "Bollox" and "bollix" are bowdlerised American versions. If you were REALLY Gene Hunt you'd be able to swear properly. --SamRSC 17:26, 25 November 2011 (EST)
Since I used to be an immature vandal before meeting Psy, I know you'll read this:
I confused "bullocks" with "bollocks", sorry for not caring much for your petty insults. ~ JonG ~ 20:08, 25 November 2011 (EST)

Blocked users

Hi Jon. If you check the logs, you'll see that I had posted those messages on two users' pages before they were blocked. I was trying to draw the attention of other users to ensure that they were blocked, since I don't have the ability myself. Let me know if you need help finding the logs and I'll be happy to help. Thank you! Kevin Davis Talk 08:40, 2 December 2011 (EST)

They drew enough attention to themselves with their edits and usernames. If a future violator isn't blocked in a "timely fashion", then write on a SysOp's talk page. ~ JonG ~ 09:36, 2 December 2011 (EST)
When user names are inappropriate, I feel that expedience overrides silence as a primary concern. Also, as I was editing at the time before it disabled, I wanted to be on the record as aware of the problem. Kevin Davis Talk 10:39, 2 December 2011 (EST)


Never heard of that. JonM 19:32, 20 December 2011 (EST)

You should check your eyesight, and read my summary again -- ctrl+(mouse wheel up) works too. ~ JonG ~ 19:36, 20 December 2011 (EST)
Ameriwiki. Fine whatever, looks the same to meJonM 19:38, 20 December 2011 (EST)