From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hitler article

The Hitler article is locked to prevent vandalism, but the most recent changes by RobS and Geo.plrd are nothing short of vandalism. --Order 19 March, 14:00 (AEST

I fail to see how I vandalized this page by adding information. I have unprotected it to allow work. Geo. 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
These are all the edits User:RobS made to the Hitler article when User:Order made this complaint. [1][2][3][4][5][6] User:Order (A) failed to respond to my request to cite any factual errors, and (B) claimed he really meant another user other than myself after posting extensive false and defamatory information about me under two subheadings on this page. User:James Lipton has meanwhile repeated privately the malicious defamations directed at myself based upon what he read here written by User:Order.
This appears to be classic Wikipedia & liberal bullying aimed at intimidating another user. Both these users need to be held to account for thier conduct. RobS 18:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
It looked like subtle vandalism, by inserting many red herrings and factual erros. Thanks for unprotecting it, although I am not sure where to begin first. The article bebfore the improvment drive was maybe short, and a bit simplistic, but at least fairly correct.--Order 19 March 20:00 (AEST)
  • I posted over there at the Hitler talk page. Let's hope cooler heads will manage the rather simple task of informing users what Hitler was, and what it was he ordered, without getting bogged down in nitpicks and petty arguments. When examining true Evil, and trying to explain it, we simply don't have time for that kind of crap. --TK 06:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Can somebody stop RobS from editing the Hitler article. Every entry he adds contains at least two factual errors, and he presents legends on Hitler as facts. He doesn't do any research before an edit, and probabaly just relies on his recollections from either history class or his grandmother. Locking this page to prevent vandalism doesn't help, if there is a not-so-subtle vandal among the sysops. --Order 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)

And TK is posted copyrighted material. As a sysop. --Order 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
There is no subtle vandalism going on, it is a good faith effort to improve this article. Geo. 02:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you distinguish? If they weren't sysops, they would or should have gotten a warning. --Order 20 March, 17:55 (AEST)
Intent Geo. 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
They have been told a few times, especially RobS that the edits conatin many factual errors. That didn't keep him from introducing more. I assume he did it with intend, since I assume that he is able to google for actual information, rather relying on myths, legends, or made up stuff. If he is not able do that, I wouldn't blame him of course. --Order 20 March, 14:00 (AEST).
  • You distingush by reading the history. :p The attribution was in one of my drafts, and in all the moving and re-arranging, wasn't there when I finished in the middle of the night. Is this place always such a tempest in a teapot? I posted material that is in the public domain, not copyrighted, and attributed. If you see something like what I did, and know the attribution, it is your duty and right to add it in. If you don't know it, rather than running like a baby to abuse, you should contact the person who edited it. My email is listed here, my IM is listed. Does that not sound fair? The page was a freakin' mess. The page is supposed to be about Hitler...they were all over the map. The focus is now back where it should have been all along. I think far too many of you isolate yourselves, rather than communicating, and the last few posts are a good example.
  • I assumed that you had just dumped some material for further improvement. That why I said that I was looking forward to the final version. The material that you posted was at least mostly factual. The strom in the teapot, is because the article as it was, was nothing more than a Miffy version of History. "Hitler planned a putsch in a beer hall. The army storms the room. Hitler trips and falls. Look, Hitler is unharmed. Hitler escapes." That has nothing to do with a serious entry on this guy. Thats why I was glad that you at least infused some factual material, even if it's from another site. Order 20 March 21:10 (AEST)
  • Then the purpose of posting here, before you ascertained any of the facts, was what, exactly? I am not looking to beat this horse, but I think my comments were valid, and my solution, quoting one of the foremost experts on the "Final Solution" and Adolf Hitler was better than what was going on. Sometimes one can and should copy. Only this wasn't even that, just my dumb mistake to leave the attribution off the final compilation, even though the quotes and link are on my Word copy of it. The point is, it explains who and what Hitler was. As for the rest of the page, if you all could stop sniping at one another, and hammer it all out on the talk page, it would be even better. I almost removed all the rest of the crap there, and perhaps I should have, and only transfered over what was posted and cited on the talk page. Do you think that would have been a better solution? I just get a bit riled when people run around shouting "dishonest" without ever looking at the facts present, or at least having the decency to ask. Now, why don't you get in touch, and together perhaps, since you have the interest in the topic, we can do what we can to make the page even more informative? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 06:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I say that I was actually pleased that you put the Wiesel speech into the article. I'm happy to say it again. I was glad about your material, and I was looking forward for it to be intergrated with the rest, or even replace the rest, where possible. Order 20 March 21:10 (AEST)

Please feel free to make a new header on the talk page, and give me your thoughts. :-) --~ Terry Talk2Me! 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

John Howard article

This article appears to have a history of silly edits. The latest is by the aptly named "Not a Conservative". Here it is. I suggest he be blocked. --Horace 01:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't Australia have a house of Commons? Geo. 01:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the Federal Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The various State Parliaments have their own upper and lower houses excepting Queensland which did away with its upper house at some point. --Horace 01:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
okay. Geo. 01:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Abuse of sysop priviledge

There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. RobS first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on Liberals. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But RobS now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only RobS can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. Order 23 March 12:05 (AEST)

  • You refered to a citation [7] to Lucy Dawidowicz, [one of the most respected Holocaust historians of the past 50s years, as a "rant". [8] You did this presumably because you could not respond to her words, so you came here and posted garbage about me. RobS 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I didn't call her words a rant, but the fact that you included her words to suggest that the gay victims do not actually matter. Not the point she wanted to make was the issue, but the point you wanted to make. User:Order 30 March, 10:15 AEST
  • So, you attacked the messenger of bad news on two pages. And you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to refute Dawidowicz with. Then, given the sensitive nature of this subject, you impugned me rather than address Dawidowicz. How Wikipedia-esque. RobS 20:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I didn't shoot the messenger. I was extermely annoyed at you as a sysop, who abuses his privileges to edit an article, without discussion, while his edits are contested. This whole episode of clinging stubbornly to one particular version cost more time than necessary. Because, in the end we were able to agree on something quite close to the compromise that was outlined in the very beginning. But due to an assymetry in power which was used in your atvanatge, we did fight over access, rather than over content. User:Order 5 April, 2:00 (AEST)
  • In this context the Dawidowicz was inappropiate. And if you are looking for some arguments against the dawidowicz quote, just read the article that you qouted. I don't want to refute the Dawidowics article. It just unencyclopedic to plunge a quote, by someone who is not introduced, out of context, somewhere, without context. That is close to being a 'rant'.
However, if you want to discuss the relative importance of gay victims, you can for example start with the fact that there where about 20000 or so gay victims (these numbers are by memory), which is not much compared to the 6 million dead jews, or 20 million dead russians. If you want to discuss it, discuss it with context. The way you dealt with it was bad, without context. From a long article describing the plight of homosexuals, you select the single sentence that rejects it. User:Order 5 April, 2:00 (AEST)
You haven't said anything new here, and the discussion on Hitler/Talk was extensive, and beneficial to all involved. You did characterize Dawidowicz as a rant, and my insertion was in the Holocaust section. The quote is right here (as similiar claims throughout Conservapedia have appeared elsewhere),
He was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, many disabled persons, and homosexuals, along with many other groups, through the so-called "final solution". [9]
and I beleive we all undersand the Hitler article and others will not be used to promote the gay agenda for the false claim that "millions of homosexuals" were exterminated by Nazis, as "right-wing" "Dominionists" also wish to do.
I suspect you purposefully came here to impugn me as anti-Semitic and rally others to this sentiment. And in my personal view, this is an abuse of your editing priveleges. RobS 13:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I am fine with the version in [10]. My comment referred to this edit:[11].
  • The conservapedia entry never said that millions of homosexuals were killed. And thats how it should be, because it is not true. You are barking up the wrong tree.
  • I am still puzzled why you quoted from a pro-gay article, the single anti-gay quote? Its like arguing in favor of intelligent design, and citing an article by Dawkins is which her refers to Behe.
  • What has anti-semetic do do with this? Why should I blame you for anti-semitism?Order 6 April 11:00 (AEST)
The stunt worked and the kid who took the bait got his fingers burned. Let's put this kind of stuff behind us and focus on addressing issues, facts, and sources. RobS 22:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I unlocked Hitler. I locked it. What is the problem with it now, Order? Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, his problems weren't just with Hitler but with Liberals, too. That came out wrong. Myk 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that User:RobS probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article show that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example
    • Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
    • Next edit on 22 March by User:RobS.
    • First edit says protection of all of God's creation even if advocated by atheists. Bold added by User:RobS. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessarily offensive.
    • Same edit he adds opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.
    • Calling liberal parties in Europe so-called moderate and center-right. The is nothing so-called about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. User:RobS just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.
  • You have a diff for this claim? RobS 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
This one should do [12] User:Order 5 April, 2:20 (AEST)
ohhh, ok. This is a reference to the Politcal Spectrum Theory once again. People are not born "moderate" or "center-right" as they are Jewish for example, or Black, male or female, or as some would theorize "born homosexual". We can't pass off theories like "leftism" for example, as being doctrinal or definitive of anything. It means different things to different people and different cultures at different places at different times. It's all subjective, and not very definitive or anything. RobS
In that case the 'so-called' should preceed any mention of left or right, preferrably throughout Conservapdia. User:Order 6 April 11:00 (AEST)
I agree. And it's gonna be a lot of work. It would help to get solid definitions, but so far all we've seen is
A liberal is a leftist--->click here
A leftist is a liberal--->click here
leftist oppose oppression. Hence Communists are leftists
I'll just revert til the cows come home until somebody seriously tackles this issue. But it's not my place to define nonsense I quit trying to make sense out of thirty years ago. RobS 21:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
    • In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
    • In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.
    • Next few edits he fixes typos.
    • Then, after his claim that liberals reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
      • First to show that there exists a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a liberal position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might added the quoye for the following reason:
      • He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
    • When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, which User:RobS just reverts, usually without much discussion. In this way he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. User:Order 23 March 16:20 (AEST)
  • I would submit that, even though I have had occasional differences with Rob, as all of you have been witness to, I find his writing and contributions, as does Andrew Schlafly‎, to be superlative. He made many valuable contributions to the Ronald Reagan page, as well as the Hitler page. He has had two or three recent articles (that he made) made featured pages here, by Andrew. Try to remember that this is the Conservapedia. As it should be, things will be represented from that point of view. Many parties in the EC are called "moderate" and, as viewed from here, by Conservatives, they are anything but.
As to Liberals and Human Rights, President Carter for example, I see his concern for such rights certainly blossomed since he left the White House, which is good, as his record there, aside from babble, was pretty dismal on real actions. One would note that real dollar aide to Africa, Sudan in particular, and AIDS Relief, has been increased some 200% under current President Bush, as opposed to President Clinton. You've got the wrong person here to repeat crap you get from liberal websites and blogs here. Any of you can IM me and have a dialog where I can point you to factual information, pro and con, on almost any recent administration. I can safely say, Jimmy Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like, and his support of them, if not such a tragedy, would be laughable. One notes that recently some of his closest associates have publicly and reluctantly, questioned his judgement, with the anti-Semitic statements he has made the last year or so. I just chalk it up to age.
Finally, let me say something about communication. IMO, most of the people here, including Andrew, are pretty poor at it. One cannot write major articles, contribute, and hammer out compromises, merely posting back and forth in the discussion pages. More of you should be using the IM's from whatever service, to ask questions and receive answers speedily, and to clear up budding misunderstandings. Instead, doing as most of you seem to want, we are saddled with a bunch of crying to "Uncle Andy" about all manner of bull that has nothing to do with this wiki. And please spare the crap about privacy. On any of the IM services, one can create a user ID in seconds, completely shielding this valued "privacy". It seems too many are so hell-bent on "protecting" their ideology, compromise and cooperation are completely impossible. It makes me wonder if all of you were like the class snitch back in grade school. Everyone is pretty quick to post crying to Andy, writing up "abuse" here, labeling whatever work someone does that you disagree with as "vandalism". Yet, when I check, I don't see posts on whoever is being complained about's talk page. one can be man enough to do that, instead everyone runs to "tell teacher". Such actions, IMO, are cowardly, and not at all logical, but maybe most of you guys were used to getting beat up in elementary school. Yeah, when I get ticked off, I am a bit extra blunt, sorry if some of you are "fragile". Please don't sue me for emotional distress. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 02:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Dude, you really need to breathe a little, maybe count to ten before typing. Who exactly are you addressing with that? Myk 03:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
First, I should add that I looked at RobS contribution when he was mangling the Hitler article, and I was surprised that he did indeed write some decent and good articles. The more I was puzzled, why he did so poor on the Hitler article. There he mostly added factual errors. In the article about Liberals he did not add too many factual errors, but turned a fairly factual article written with a conservative perspective, into an opinion piece. And added a few factual errors. I mean, if the liberal party of Austria looks left-wing to you (this is party where Haider was chairman), I have to assume that you are even more right wing than Haider. Many conservatives in the US aren't.

But the points, even if you agree with what RobS says, its is still an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. And I can see someone who is not exposed to the world outside of the US can make a mistake, in assessing European liberal parties, he should then at least look at the talk page, do a bit of research, and not start the entire discussion all over again. This is not about content, it's about style. And RobS style is that he abuses his sysop privileges.User:Order 23 March 19:10 (AEST)

  • The culture here, dude. Most of the above should have been on the talk page at Liberal, I guess, or at RobS's talk page. Everything under the sun, to some, seems to be "abuse". It is rapidly becoming the most over-used word in the world. Whatever happened to actually chatting with one another, directly? I guess most of you won't get it. :S --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There has been a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page of "Liberals". The frustrating bit is that RobS willingly does not seem to care and do he want to do anyway. Look at the history of Liberals, and also at the history of the Hitler article. User:Order 23 March 19:10 (AEST)
  • I will, and I am going to ask a couple of other Sysops who haven't contributed to the pages in question, to have a look also. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Any progress on the bad Hitler article has now stalled, because User:RoBS remains uncooperative. Order 26 March. 9:00 (AEST)
Okay, I'll unprotect it. Let's see what happens. --Ed Poor 19:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, thanks for the consult. :S We are trying to stop this from happening by contacting the person who last locked it, before reversing their actions, just FYI. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I just found this discussion; not to open a can of worms, but I challenge User:Order to find one singular factual error at Hitler, unless you wish to proceed with the understanding I thought was made on the Talk page. RobS 17:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
One that we already discussed was that more than 2 people survived the Beer Hall Putsch. But, I was mostly irrtiated by your obstructionist approach, even more so since you edited and reverted a protected article, without discussion. But I have to admit that the biggest factual erros were introduced by Geo, like that there was a runnoff election between social democrats and nazis, or that the nazi party was newly formed. User:Order 30 March, 10:20 (AEST)

New Users to watch

"The Phelpster" (possibly obsessed with Phelps) "Hojimawang" (awfully close to our highly valued Sysop) --Aschlafly 13:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Both already blocked for impersonation/inappropriate username. Sorry, but having a username as "The Phelpster" is completely unnecessary, and isn't going to cut it here. And "Hojimawang"? I don't think so... --Hojimachongtalk 13:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Well done!!!!--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Now time for more BORF-hunting! --Hojimachongtalk 13:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Some idiot keeps registering nonsense names about Hitler being a sensitive man. Sensitivity + Man = Hitler 14:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I am officially nominating User:NeverForget as a BORF. Tmtoulouse 17:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I nominate User:Sevenstring for Unsourced liberal comments:

While I think that, Crocoite, those edits were fairly stupid, you should be criticising him/her for unsourced comments - you seem to suggest that unsourced conservative comments would be fine cos they're like, certainly true. Wikinterpreter

I'm being hounded and threatened!

Hojimachong is threatening me for "incivility and name-calling" when the reality is that I'm the one being hounded by these people. See my talk page. --Ashens 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Please explain. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That would be tough, as he's been blocked. For the record, Hoji did no such thing, ask him or Mtn. Dew about it. ColinRtalk 04:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I wouldn't want to disturb you Kings. Is there someplace one could look, to see why he was blocked? You could just IM me, its on the masthead of my page, dude. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't block him or have anything to do with his blocking. I was just trying to let you know what happened. ColinRtalk 04:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Dew was kind enough to fill me in, and un-delete his user talk page. I appreciate you trying to fill me in. --~ TerryK MyTalk 05:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


Check out the user contibution of stupid and contributed images. Miland 07:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


There's no such thing. And even if there is Alan Partridge is a fictional character. Saved matt 07:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Kreskin is a "mentalist" ROFL! --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

ACLU and Evolution

I added the ACLU and Evolution section to the ACLU article [16]. This section was sourced as well. Then the following editors proceeded to undo these edits and change them to their own unsourced liberal views.

  1. ACLU User:Reginod (Anne Coulter is not an expert on what the ACLU belives) [17]
  2. ACLU User:AmesG [18]

I think it is wrong for editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal views. This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Crocoitetalk 12:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh please. Do you think that Ann Coulter has any kind of authority to speak about what the ACLU believes? Besides They're all evil godless hellbound commie pinkos, she doesn't have any kind of authority, and if she does, it can be superseded by the views of other, more critical-minded people. --Hojimachongtalk 12:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the 'separation of church and state,' which appears in the Constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses."
If that isn't a load of sarcasm on the part of Ms. Coulter, then I don't know what it is. --Hojimachongtalk 12:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
First—I did not “change sourced conservative views and replace them with [my] own liberal views”. I removed false claims supported by an unreliable source (and replaced them with nothing).
Second—I clearly explained my edit, Anne Coulter is not an appropriate source for the agenda of the ACLU—she is a fine source for her interpretation of the agenda of the ACLU—she is even a reasonable source for the objections some (but not all) conservatives have to the ACLU—but she is not an appropriate source as used. (And therefore my edit was completely in line with this site’s requirements).
Third—your edit was in violation of this site’s rules, it made an untrue and unverifiable claim—if you can find one place where the ACLU actually claims that the Constitution has a “sodomy clause” I will gladly apologize, but until then, claims that they say the Constitution has such a clause do not belong on this site. (If you really want to criticize the ACLU there is plenty to criticize them for without making false accusations and you should feel free to do that).--Reginod 12:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Reginod, thank you for your comments. I see your points. I have added my original section to the article on Godless: The Church of Liberalism, where they are more appropriate. Crocoitetalk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
No problem Crocoite, sorry if I was a bit short with you in my reply, I just worry about getting painted with a broad “liberal” brush and having problems as a result.--Reginod 13:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Using "Ann Coulter" and "reasonable" in the same sentence...what's this world coming to? That woman is like a real-life Internet Troll, only she gets paid big money to do it. --BDobbs 21:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

The ACLU is the expert on what the ACLU believes. Im sure they have something posted on their website? --PalMDtalk 12:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

The Liberal page has this statement,
  • Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
although there is little or no evidence of this; it's extremely open-minded of conservative editors that this should go unchallenged. RobS 12:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
And that is properly attributed to the American Heritage Dictionary. Not stated as fact and then giving Ann Coulter as a source. Apples, meet oranges. Myk 13:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
So long as it's the AHD and not the OED! Crackertalk

Crocoite, go home. I should start a list of people trying to get me banned. Want your name added?-AmesGyo! 12:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure how thats relevant Rob...--PalMDtalk 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


Please, nobody undo his ban. He has sent me 7-8 nasty emails. He just sent me an email using characters to represent a depiction of a vulgar sexual act. MountainDew 20:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Racist Editor

It has come to my attention that user:TerryH believes that Osama Bin Laden represents the majority of Muslims:

"Declaring that "the eugenicists don't represent the community of scientists" is like declaring that Osama bin Laden does not represent the mainstream of Islam. That might or might not be true--that requires an official government inquiry, which no one seems to have the gonadal fortitude to call for--but as to the question of whether Osama bin Laden represents the text of Islam as written, whether he is or is not a "mainstream Muslim" is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial."

I find this massively offensive, and immature. I hope action will be taken.-AmesGyo! 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Please read the notice at the very top of this page!

The user TerryH has many contributions, do you have a link to your quoted material above? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[19] - here. Myk 22:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I think racism is a higher degree of offense than others. Action should be taken.-AmesGyo! 23:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
So, you are telling me you want the sites policy changed, and users banned for racist statements on talk pages, not in the article itself, correct? Are there any other types of statements you would like banned as well? Sexist? Gender biased? Calling someone a drunk? Stupid? I'd be more than happy to throw in with you, if you can provide specific outline, and agree on The Decider. --~ TerryK MyTalk 00:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I see your point. Talk page racism is not as dangerous as article-page racism. Well argued. Perhaps, though, we should keep an eye on his edits to make sure no articles bear his stigma, and judging by his vehemence, he may not be someone we want around anyways.-AmesGyo! 00:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Religious Tolerance Breeds Empathy

"All religions and their traditions deserve to be examined, but there is a difference between critique and slander. And certainly there is a difference between insightful observations and naive comments." Tolerance Breeds Empathy A few people on this site are not practicing tolerance. I believe some of these people are professed Christians and have no problem slandering other religions. I don't agree with the notion that people should be free to say whatever they want on talk pages - look at these intolerant and demeaning statements Mormonism a cult? Are you willing to go to Heaven for Jesus Christ, or are you willing to go to Hell for Joseph Smith?. Try this one the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. Here's another one The Mormon problem Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko. I feel there should be rules for talk pages AND articles. It is not right to slander other religions, even on talk pages. Crocoitetalk 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

  • So, in order to maintain order, and spare anyone's feelings being hurt, you are willing to deny freedom of speech? Article pages should be factual, however to restrain free thought on the talk pages, so long as not sexually explicit or profanity, seems a bit whacked. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I get it, so long as someone doesn't use sexually explicit or profanity on talk pages it's free speech. I'll remember that whenever someone complains about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Crocoitetalk 11:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
This is not precise enough. The point is to focus your comments on improvements to the article. You can also chime in on any of our Debate topics or start one of your own. I won't stand for violations of free speech. Sysop Ed Poor 13:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Crocoite, please present one example of my editing or removing, words or users, for participating on talk pages. Absent name-calling and/or profanity, I agree with Ed. What does the topic of the article mean to useful discussion? --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 22:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


In Democratic Party User:Cheney123 added two images and a section - Image:A568.gif and Image:A567.jpg -- neither of which are appropriate material. The contribution of such material shows a disregard for the people and the website itself. --Mtur 17:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


User:James23 is changing dates and adding incorrect information to articles. Bohdan