User talk:Jpatt

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexBanner (Talk | contribs) at 22:25, 19 October 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2008


Archive 2009


Archive 2010


Your block policy

I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?

People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not. More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is optional Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?

ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity  ;)


Philny 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)

Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --Jpatt 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)

Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. Philny 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)
Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--Jpatt 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)
Hi. My former name was STramp, but you seem to have decided that that cannot be my real name. I'm not quite sure why?StevenTramp 21:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)


Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --AznBurger 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)

Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative"

...but really not family-friendly. Thanks for heading him off! Martyp 16:32, 5 February 2011 (EST)

The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--Jpatt 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. Martyp 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name

I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --AlaskanEconomy2 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)

I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --AlaskanEconomy 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)


Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --Toadaron 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)

New conservative pages for 2011

I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --AlaskanEconomy 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)

Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--Jpatt 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

uploading images

How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? HPadleckas 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Send to 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)

Celebrity crime

Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --Jpatt 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)
I had nothing in mind, just trying to stimulate thought here. Carry on, my good man! :-) --Ed Poor Talk 01:21, 5 March 2011 (EST)


Hey Jpatt - I manually copy-pasted move a page from Frankfurt school to Essay:Frankfurt school - but upon examining the content it appears that the original author - CharlieO - copy pasted that from another site. Could you delete both pages? Thanks!--IDuan 18:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

No problem. --Jpatt 18:57, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Photo upload

Hi, I would like to upload a photo of myself, I don't have the rights, can you do it for me? Thanks.--SarahWollstone 20:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT) Yes, send to --Jpatt 21:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT) Thanks. :)--SarahWollstone 21:23, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I just sent it to you. :) --SarahWollstone 21:32, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Done. [3]--Jpatt 21:41, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Thank you. :)--SarahWollstone 21:44, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

I need you to check your email

K? DMorris 23:20, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

nice reversions!

You're fast, sir.--IDuan 19:50, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Did you hear? I'm Quick Draw McGraw!--Jpatt 19:54, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you for the helpful links and the welcome. I hope to become a valuable member of the community.

Editing the Wicca page

I would like to formally request that the "murders" section be removed for the reasons stated on the talk page.

This is not a place to smear other people or post inflammatory material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HarabecW (talk)

I digress, this is a place to educate others and to warn them to stay clear of witchcraft. Find another topic to edit. --Jpatt 22:30, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
I have looked at some of the disputed links, and while I don't know enough about the sources themselves to question their reliability, for most of the stories no causal relationship is established between the person's religious beliefs and their actions. One might just as well divide any story about crime between those where the perpetrator was male or female and argue that their gender was the causal factor. WilliamB1 22:41, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
A person's beliefs and their actions are always tied together whether you agree or not. If Wiccans start making the news for rape, I will start a new section. --Jpatt 23:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)


Do we use stub tags here on Conservapedia?-StevenTramp 23:46, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not really recommended or necessary.--Jpatt 19:35, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

Mistake of an email

I sent you an email raising a question - having seen the new evidence you can safely ignore it - sorry for that!--IDuan 20:05, 12 May 2011 (EDT)


I noticed you reverted changes made to the Tower of London article that mentioned the legend of the ravens. I know you banned the editor for vandalism, but in this case, the story is true. There is a legend telling that if the ravens at the Tower leave, it portends the downfall of both the Tower and the kingdom. I know it's trivia, but it's fun too and I'd love to see it added back into the article. Here's a link about the story. SharonW 21:32, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

No problem. Go ahead and add it back.--Jpatt 21:38, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! I'll add the reference too.SharonW 22:36, 12 May 2011 (EDT)

Religion headline

Hi - that's a great news story, but I wonder if I may suggest a small change to the wording? At present is says "study came up with similar findings" but no other findings are listed to be similar too; it's an out of context quote.

I'd suggest saying something like "Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, says a 3-year, multi-million Pound survey conducted by Oxford University." Maybe even add that it is a liberal institution, that offered tenure to Richard Dawkins? TracyS 12:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Maria Shriver

Hi - I noticed you added "Schwarzenegger" for Shriver's last name. I don't believe she ever changed her name legally and has never gone by the name "Schwarzenegger". SharonW 10:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Ok, I'll remove it. After her divorce she can go from Mrs. Maria Shriver to Ms. Maria Shriver. New age liberals are a joke. --Jpatt 12:19, 20 May 2011 (EDT)


Hi - this user is vandalising articles and constantly reverting me. Please can you show him the door? TracyS 10:52, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Raymond Davis Affair

Do you know anything of this? The Obama administration evidently invoked Islamic law to circumvent the judicial system in Pakistan to obtain a Blackwater (or whatever) operative in Pakistan only weeks before the Abbotobad raid. People in Pakistan are very upset. The democratically elected regime & military are cooperating with the US because they fear Islamic fundementalism, yet when it suits him, Obama pays $2.3 million in blood money under Koranic law to get a hired mercenary out. Ironic. Rob Smith 20:03, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

I haven't heard this but it wouldn't surprise me.--Jpatt 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Raymond was CIA--Jpatt 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)


I wasn't sure how to contact you other than this, please let me know if there is another way if you would be so kind. I was not aware of the policy against using fact tags, thank you for informing me. I had seen them used in several articles and assumed it was okay. I would appreciate if you would clear something up for me about the citation policy, please: why is it the responsibility of a person who discovers uncited work to find the citation rather than the original poster of the work? I thought it would have been in the spirit of the encyclopedia's "no gossip" rules that statements should be cited and that calling attention to uncited materials would be helpful in clearing the site of gossip. Thanks again for filling me in and not banning me outright to begin with. I appreciate the help!Jefferson 23:25, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

Jefferson, thanks for the mature response. It is the original poster who is supposed to reference. Our suggestion is if you find questionable content, put it on the talk page. If it can be discussed through, then someone can add a citation. If nobody questions the talk page, feel free to delete the questionable content. Unfortunately, this is not spelled out for new users yet. In the scope of ideology, a liberal would find fault with every conservative sentence. So there may be citation requests on other pages but it is not an acceptable form of contribution here. Let me know if I can be of any help. --Jpatt 23:47, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? DMorris 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
I don't know why I didn't think of that. For some reason I thought it was built-in to wikimedia but it's a tag, sure it should be deleted. Will discuss with Aschlafly.--Jpatt 23:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)

No rules found for editing a new article

The rules encourage discussion of intent of substantial edit of established articles, and discourage taking liberties of simply substantially editing those articles with no prior discussion. But, I have been substantially editing articles which I have created, and which no one else has either edited or commented on ('invisible' editors). Should I discuss with 'invisible' editors my intent of substantial edits of articles in regard to which they are 'invisible'?PatternOfPersona 21:09, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

The short answer is no. Discussions will be made upon disagreements. Substantial edits to established articles need not require approval either. Though if you are deleting content instead of adding to or replacing a viewpoint, then you will face resistance from other contributors and reverts. Hope that helps. --Jpatt 21:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

Uncited Sentences

"If a sentence needs to be cited please use the "fact" template at the end of the sentence." I'm only following Conservapedia protocol. -StudioFire 00:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I also suggest that you reread the Conservapedia Commandments, which include: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." as well as "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." There should be a Commandment for Ad hoc reasoning, seeing as how that seems to justify much of the content on this site...StudioFire 00:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

That includes you, StudioFire. Karajou 00:56, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the immature response StudioFail which proves the reasoning on the fact tags. We allow content from liberals but if we let them add citation requests- they'll find something wrong with every page.--Jpatt 10:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

revision delete

What's the point of oversighting vandals if all they do is blank the page?--CamilleT 15:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Aesthetics, red links are messy. Just so you know, France won the 100 year war between England and most of their colonial wars in Africa.--Jpatt 16:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
:D I've a feeling that French military history is going to be something of a meme around my presence. Someone who dislikes France might say France took their time kicking the British out during the 100 years war. Someone who likes France would then refer you to William the Conqueror. Then we'd be told that William the Conqueror doesn't count, because he wasn't French, he was a Normand. Never mind that because of his conquest of England English courts spoke French for 300 years after his death. The whole subject is rather tired to me. I've never been one for Patriotism, either for France or the USA. I know better than to associate myself with the failures and achievements of others just because we share an ethnic group or political boundaries.--CamilleT 16:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)


What brought on that reversion to a perfectly innocuous edit? --XavierC 21:12, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Just curious as to your intentions. Carry on great patron saint.--Jpatt 21:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for your kind welcome!

I appreciate it. =) -Melissa Fox, 2011

Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay

I was surprised at the boldness of this essay. Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm? If not, I'd like to suggest you at least read a comprehensive synopsis of it. It has the very famous line "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.", and I couldn't help but feel that your essay had the same viewpoint (except with humans, obviously).

Another quote from the book for you to consider:

Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

—George Orwell's Animal Farm

Perhaps you can see the slight correlation I made between the your essay and Animal Farm. I do not write this in spite, and I have no malicious intentions...I just thought I'd use my First Amendment right to instigate some casual, intelligent conversation. --LifeHelper 13:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

I did read Animal Farm about 25 years ago. Subconscience-based viewpoint? You are what you fill your mind with but I wrote it due to liberals insistence that Conservapedia be fair. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. To be fair is to give lies equal time. --Jpatt 13:59, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Forgive me for quoting Orwell again;

If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.

—George Orwell's 1984

Food for thought! -LifeHelper 14:27, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

A lie never becomes the truth, only puts on the appearance of truth, clothed in the truth but at heart, still a lie. --Jpatt 15:09, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

"A just weight and balance are the LORD's." -- Proverbs, 16:11. DavidHRG 14:34, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
Sure, I believe that. Judgement is for the Lord. "What is desirable in a man is his kindness, and it is better to be a poor man than a liar." --Proverbs 19:22 So we are able to tell what is wrong and what is right, we don't wait for His judgement to tell us.--Jpatt 14:57, 1 July 2011 (EDT)


Hi. I was just curious as to why you deleted my edit to the Obama page. Because last time I checked, I could source my claim, and yours just happened to be hear-say conspiracy theory that you're wasting your time with. If you're searching for the truth and not slander why not go with the claim that can be proven like mine? -

Mave182, maybe you didn't read my message to you. Proven claims... kidding right? How do you get proof when the person were talking about hasn't yet disclosed it? Hear-say, conspiracy theory? Here is my message to you, again. a few mass visits, black liberation theology, invitation for atheists to join WH Faith-based initiatives, no baptism record and much more secrecy. The refs just don't legitimize Obama's faux Christianity. Let me add his disdain for traditional marriage, his support of death to womb children, his constant pandering to the Muslim faith? He's as Christian as much as Stalin was.--Jpatt 22:02, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Hey my conservative brethren. In case you don't know what proven means, here's how. You say something then back it up with evidence, not free floating hate speech you heard from Glenn Beck. Cite just one of those claims with a source that agrees, and be source i mean something legitimate. As for my claim, here's a few things that back up his Christianity.,8599,1907610,00.html You shouldn't deny truth just because it doesn't cater to your narrow minded, slandering viewpoint. --MAVE182 22:20, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Love how you provide the drinkers of Obama's bathwater as proof. --Jpatt 22:29, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Hi JPatt. I gave the guy a day to review the site and its aims. Personally I don't agree with many of the things on Conservapedia but I respect its rules and understand its right to present what information it does. MaxFletcher 23:10, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

The truth is non-negotiable, lack of agreement is not an easy thing to digest. As I observe on social media, the right is magnifying each and every flaw in their candidates. Let's hope that our common sense and values overcome the many flaws we all have.--Jpatt 23:26, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
From our flaws we find perfection.MaxFletcher 03:09, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Tolaration of more than one religion doesnt make you a bad christian. In fact, I believe if you can't do that, it makes you a very poor Christian. And if you prefer, here's a source that doesn't drink obama's bathwater, but rather chugs the radical right's urine. As for Max, the entire point of this site is putting up a non-bias viewpoint that is based on fact. Fact is, Barack Obama is a practicing Christian. You may disagree with his politics which is fine, but according to the 1st Ammendment, this man shouldn't be denied the right to practice his religion and shouldn't be slandered as a Christian for unrelated issues. --MAVE182 17:01, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I refuse to reply to any future posts of yours on my page. Your sharp tongue speaks all righteous leftist points, a Cafeteria Christian, one that ignores Intrinsic Evil and an apologist for outright sin. What Christian would support the evil that Obama supports? You slander Glenn Beck, you slander Fox News and then you have to gall to call me a slanderer. You can chose to live like the pigs do but you aren't fooling anyone here, you hear?--Jpatt 18:16, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
It's very simple MAVE and since you came off your high horse, I guess that does merit a response. I am talking beyond accuracy and beyond statistics. I am talking about absolutes. Who are you MAVE? Let's talk about MAVE, hidden in the shadows, full of knowledge- yet identity unknown, a keyboard diva? To continue to communicate with you would mean I have to match wits with an unknown, convert you into my way of thinking. When I know already that you are passionate, yet deceptive, not intent to learn, only to play games and waste time. Just because I will call out wrong and confront evil, don't try and pass it off as like I'm trying to act as a tough guy. You just make yourself sound thuggish. Jesus rules! Amen. --Jpatt 22:19, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I thought you might enjoy this

Fixed typo conservative 20:01, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Book of Tobit

Hi Jpatt; I was looking for the Conservapedia article on the Book of Tobit; it's a red link in the Bible article. If I read the search results correctly, you deleted it. May I ask why? I'm interested in working on an article about Tobit unless there's a good reason for omitting from Conservapedia. Thanks in advance --Bwebster 19:27, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't recall deleting but it may have been a copied source. Please, recreate how you feel best. Incorporate deleted information if it is valid.--Jpatt 23:18, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

John Adams "Notable Quote" Error

I just came across the article on John Adams and I found an error. You listed as a notable quote "[The Declaration of Independence] That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." However the accompanying footnote takes you to Gingrich's book, Rediscovering God in America pg 6 at Google books where the quote is attributed to John Quincy Adams. Im new to Conservapedia so I dont know if I should go ahead and make the edit. I'll just leave it to you. --JR 13:20, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Newbie, nice to meet you. Now that is a good catch and clearly an error on my part. In the future, no harm nor foul to edit pages. Quotes are tough to verify. Sites like Brainyquote will not suffice. --Jpatt 19:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
And just to add on a reason to not trust them: often those sites don't distinguish between a quote by a person, and a quote about that person, so who actually said it is unclear, especially when the quote doesn't have the name in it. - JamesCA 00:59, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Nice to meet you too. Ive read the edit policy since my post so Im up to speed on what to do now. Thanks! --JR 19:59, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you

Thank you for moving my new article to one with a proper name. I wasn't sure how to go about it, so thank you. Any tips on how to edit/create articles would help alot, if you have the time of course. --CAndrs 20:10, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Quadrupling Conservapedia's traffic

I have a simple plan which I think could quadruple Conservapedia's web traffic in a short time that will not cost any money. I should find out in a week if I get the cooperation of a couple of key individuals. The only downside of my plan is it doesn't involve the concepts of machismo, mentioning the obesity with any subcultures or referring to atheism as a worldview for clowns. :) Conservative 08:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

I think my simple plan will be implemented based on some receptive feedback I received. I have to implement some things first. Not sure how fast it will happen though. Conservative 19:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT)


User:FOIA has been blocked? Rob Smith 15:24, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Never mind. I see what happened. Good block. Thanks. Rob Smith 15:40, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Singer images

I found some replacements from the Wikimedia Commons. They're on the page now. Thanks!!!--JamesWilson 08:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

I thank you greatly, Jpatt!--JamesWilson 14:57, 1 August 2011 (EDT)


Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez 09:06, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up HERE. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up HERE. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. Conservative 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the invite. I decline.--Jpatt 14:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
I knew you would decline, but I didn't want to be impolite. :) Conservative 14:19, 13 August 2011 (EDT)


Thanks for undoing the vandalism on my page!--MorrisF 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Brewmaster's degree

Hi JPatt, I noticed that you added brewmaster to the list of "worst college majors." That made me think of a friend of mine who is an actual brewmaster. Would you believe that he can basically live anywhere he wants to, and there will always be a job for him wherever he goes (provided there are breweries nearby)? In whatever economy, anywhere in the world, there's a built-in demand for what he's capable of making. I'd call that a pretty darned good major. JDWpianist 16:28, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

LOL, yeah I think i would enjoy being a brewmaster. Doesn't sound too stressful. Anyway, I gained the insight from this months Popular Science magazine Awesome Labs- 25 of the coolest places to pursue science. Anyway, it costs alot of money to go to college. Learning to brew your own beer is done by millions of people without a degree. "Every year, 10 or so student gain careers in small business" - says the brewmaster professor. --Jpatt 16:54, 15 August 2011 (EDT)


What is up with these guys? I can barely think of a more objective fact than "Ferraris are overpriced." Even Ferrari owners wouldn't argue with me, being overpriced is part of why people buy them so they can show off their money. How do I proceed? --CraigF 3:59 August 16th (ETC)

Ok, I think they final got my logic. CraigF 4:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Me personally, I like the Lamborghini. It is however, a bit overpriced as well.--Jpatt 19:44, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I like Lambos too, sort of the muscle cars of Italy, but I've still seen them get trounced by American iron too many times to justify their huge price tags. --CraigF 22:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Henry Ford

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm having trouble. I tried to remove some slanderous remarks from the Henry Ford page, but people reverted me and demanded references to refute a bunch of propaganda designed to harm Ford's reputation. At the same time they want references to prove an obvious fact that Ferdinand Porsche happily worked with the Nazis. I don't really get it, this is an pro American wiki that is focused on fact not propaganda. --CraigF 00:43, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Sorry again, it looks like it was resolved, I guess I was wrong. I guess it is good that I am learning, but I'm going to have to really evaluate my thinking. --CraigF 01:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)


Pleas block vandal.

Thank you. --ZachJ 16:49, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
| Liberal wandal terminated. I expect we'll see him again before public school is back in session. --Jpatt 16:54, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Removing facts

Ok I admit I was wrong about Henry Ford. History isn't my best subject, but SharonW keeps removing well known facts from my articles and says she can't find references. I found some references and readded what I said, but what if she changes it back, I get the impression she doesn't know that much about cars. I have to go to bed, so don't worry about responding unitl tomorrow. --CraigF 02:52, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

I like the pages you are adding. With that said, we take this project seriously. I suggest you let others change your work as they see fit. They'll likely take the edge off your comments but the rest remains, don't take it personal. I'll back you up my friend, just keep adding and let me know any problems that occur. We will work through it together.--Jpatt 12:37, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Jpatt! --CraigF 16:11, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

RLorian's block

Hi, JPatt. RLorian was reverting vandalism. not really edit-warring. BrentH 13:27, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Conservapedia down sometimes

Hi Jpatt, I've noticed that sometimes Conservapedia goes down while I'm using it. The really weird thing is that this only seems to happen after I make a couple of edits. I took a break from editing for a few days and never had any problems reading articles, but today I started editing again and after a couple of minutes I couldn't open any pages. Am I the victim of cyber attacks? --CraigF 21:03, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

No. IT just happens every so often as far as I can tell.--SeanS 21:04, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Wait a minute

Doesn't McCain have his favorite American hero story? Why was he swapped out? I mean, keep Reagan, but you should still keep McCain. I don't know that Reagan has a famous military story to tell. --WilliamMoran 15:00, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

It's a gallery of American heroes, not necessarily war heroes. Reagan led the collapse of the Soviet Union. McCain on the other hand is respected for his service to country during captivity, not actually a leader of hero caliber. --Jpatt 15:14, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
My understanding was that the Soviet Union would collapse anyway. Communism cannot sustain itself! --WilliamMoran 16:01, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
It was going to collapse. Reagan's big military thing only made it worse for them because they had to keep pace.--SeanS 16:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
Reagan gets the credit just like B Hussein Obama can get credit for Bin Laden. --Jpatt 17:22, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
The US actually was more intimately involved with the capturing and killing of Bin Laden because our very own men and women did it. Credit to CIA!!! --WilliamMoran 17:24, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
There is a long list of those that deserve credit, starting with Gen. Petraeus. Obama ultimately gets the nod because as leader, he kept Bush's policies in place to finish what was started. As far as the "gutsy call" the lib media tried to portray-- that's balderdash. --Jpatt 17:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


I found some liberal vandalism that User:TerryB put into the dictionary project. I fixed it, but he probably should be blocked. He used the edit summary "improve" and said that conservatives forbid you to marry who you love, a ridiculous notion. I'm also having problems with other liberals trying to water down a variety of definitions, what can be done? --CraigF 01:29, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

There is more than one liberal troll adding nonsense to the dictionary project. I will go through the project today and remove false entries and individuals from Conservapedia deserving of a block. Thanks Craig. --Jpatt 09:22, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
Great job limiting the amount of vandalism in that recent vandal attack. Of course, Phase III of Conservapedia gaining additional web traffic is totally impervious to CP vandals significantly affecting it. :) Conservative 19:13, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Request for Admin assistance

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See here for the latest accusation. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. MaxFletcher 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)


If Scooby doo is not an acceptable article, then why is South Park? Your friend Mac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacStennis (talk)

I don't find any of your contributions to be genuine.--Jpatt 02:16, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Bill Ayers and OWS

So you're currently in violation of the first commandment of CP. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the idea that Ayers said that quote. In fact there's all the evidence saying he didn't. The website linked does not say he said that at all. It doesn't even imply it. Also, if you search that phrase and "bill ayers" there are two hits. The article linked and the article on OWS here. Meanwhile a search for that phrase comes up with literally dozens of articles which don't mention him at all. You're supporting a blatant, unsupported lie by putting it back. Ayzmo 15:18, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

What a tough guy you are hiding behind that keyboard. I was going to change it when it was first brought to the talk page. Aschlafly reviewed it and made a slight addition. A blatant lie? Do you think he has never said such a thing? Do you think that he has nothing but the best intentions for this country? The only thing wrong I see is your support for Ayers and your lame attempt to make a stink.--Jpatt 20:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Important 7 minute video News Story

This was posted to The Blaze yesterday: Glenn Beck on Bill O'Reilly: 'How the Marxist Revolution Plans to De-Threat the Tea Party. It's a 7 minute video, but I think it's incredibly valuable information that the public should know -- but the MSM will never report. Beck clarifies everything the public needs to know about Occupy Wall Street. DerekE 00:07, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

I'll give it a look, thanks.--Jpatt 00:09, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Departmento Munitorum

Thanks for the removal of ordnance discussion earlier. Textbook stuff. RexBanner 23:25, 19 October 2011 (EDT)