From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Current Alerts

  1. Cooperstown4 (talk contribs count) - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
  2. Zac4213 (talk contribs count) - Was my block too hasty?
  3. CoulterMan (talk contribs count) - Seems to make habit of cut-and-paste from other sources; see, for example, his entry here for Sam Johnson versus that of Wikipedia's. Also seems prone to edit wars and non-factual assertions, but that's a whole other issue. A word to the wise, perhaps?--WJThomas 14:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Dealt with

  1. User:Theelephant - Vandalism--Epicurius 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
    • 18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
  2. Amyz (talk contribs count) - I don't trust her edits - see Iran and Japan. I sure hope I'm wrong, though. --Ed Poor 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I see nothing abusive, maybe I'm just partial to editors who boldly take on controversial subjects. Asking for cites would be beneficial, like for this claim [1], "With Iran's assistance, Hezbollah launched terrorist attacks even against such clearly inoffensive countries as Argentina"; such properly sourced information would be invaluable. RobS 20:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I see no real abuse, much of the material is similar to Wikipedia, but there is no real direct copy and paste from what I can see. I would also agree with RobS that citations would be nice.--Elamdri 20:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Loljesus (talk contribs count) - deleted China
    • Damage contained - user blocked by MountainDew
  2. (Notavandal01 (talk contribs count) - vandalism, blocked by MountainDew
  3. Sanity (talk contribs count) - hostile user page, signs as the indefinitely blocked edittext (talk contribs count)
  4. Dandriscoll (talk contribs count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • Blocked by MountainDew
  5. edittextisi (talk contribs count) - many tiny edits
    • Blocked by Elamdri
  6. Weeeeee (talk contribs count) - vandalism, most notably this, signed as edittext
    • Blocked by--CPAdmin1 19:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  7. Reagan316 (talk contribs count) (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Page Vandalism/Nonsense contribs.)
    • Blocked by TK23:29, 1 April 2007
  8. Dandriscoll (talk contribs count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • 19:01, 31 March 2007 MountainDew (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Dandriscoll (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (a parodist)
  9. Ayns Daughter (talk contribs count) -Blocked by MountainDew
  10. User:AnonymousLegion - Vandalism--Epicurius 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --Elamdri 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  11. User:Mjc12 - blocked by Conservative
  12. Polarbear (talk contribs count) - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by Elamdri 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  13. TK blocked Cheney123 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )

Conflicts between users

Use this section when it's more between 2 of us, than between some random newbie and the project itself:

  1. RobS (talk contribs count) - Has been attempting to troll me and the page on Anti-Semitism, he's clearly replacing proven information with pure speculation, and then attempted to get me banned for putting backed information. JamesLipton 21:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
    This edit was reverted [2] with a summary, "read the cite; don't see how it supports the claim". User:JamesLipton's actions there & here may be considered trollish behavior. RobS 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
User:JamesLipton has made unsubstantiated and inflamitory remarks privately. He has repeated comments made by User:Order which Order himself has admitted to being false accusations against myself. [3][4] I regard the actions of both editors as harassment.
User:JamesLipton is intent upon [5][6] inserting false and malicious information into the Anti-Semitism article to impugn "fundementalist christians" (his words) and Rev. Jerry Falwell. The latter defamation did include an external link citation which was reviewed and failed to substantiate the malicious charge ascribed to Rev. Falwell by User:JamesLipton.
User:JamesLipton was blocked for two hours for trolling, however after recieving a threatening e-mail from him, stronger action may be necessary. RobS 17:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
The extent of my threat was that I would contact other administrators. Falwell was clearly quoted as stereotyping the Jews in the link I provided. [7] If that doesn't prove my statement saying that Falwell has made open statements that can be taken as anti-semitism, then there's something terribly wrong with the standard of citations for this site.
It appears RobS only wants his opinion present, and has no qualms against putting words in my mouth or blocking me.
Also he has abused his admin powers, it is clearly stated on his talk page that he should never block for idealogical reasons, which he most obviously did. JamesLipton 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
  • If all that is so, why is this user still here? Don't be such a softie, Rob. See where it gets you? To my way of thinking, a user emailing or messaging a Sysop with threats, inflammatory remarks or slander should be blocked as if they posted them in the article. Same goes for engaging in "revert wars" with a Sysop. Mr. Lipton, cherry picking quotes to "show" someone might be anti-semetic, that (to quote you) "...that Falwell has made open statements that can be taken as anti-semitic...." might be something to be included in The Sun, but hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
It didn't start with this user; this user repeated the lies & distortions under two subheadings on this page that never should have been posted here either. Now I've been stalked, harassed, bullyied, defamed, and intimidated. I have nothing to hide nor nothing to to run from. This abuse, however needs to be dealt with head on, right here and now.
This user stated, "It appears that you, are actually anti-semitic yourself. Not only from your conservative biased edits and trolling of the antisemitism page, but your terrible unproved statements on the page of Hitler."
I suspect this was User:Order's intent when posting the garbage he posted here to begin with.
The cite User:JamesLipton uses to slander Falwell with needs closer scrutiny itself which I haven't had a chance to look at. The author of the smear appears to be a private investigator for hire.
The substance of the claim that Falwell is "anti-Semitic" is simply lacking in the text from the link. There are two references, the first appears to be joke Falwell was making which actually praises Jews and ridicules non-Jews; the second is under a subhead entitled "Missionary activity" and quotes a passage from Falwell's book, "The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior. Yet they are God's people, and in the world today Bible-believing Christians are the best friends the nation Israel has."
If this is anti-Semitism I suspect the Jesus, the Aposptle Paul, and Mother Theresa must all be anti-Semites, too.
This is simply another case were a controversial person use the word, "Jew" in print, and called an anti-Semite for doing so. When I reverted, I was called an anti-Semite. These must be dealt with now, and me banning either or both solves nothing. RobS 21:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"Now I've been stalked, harassed, bullyied, defamed, and intimidated." Are you serious? Unless you are talking of that "Order" guy, I have no idea what you are speaking of.
About the Hitler edit thing, that was my mistake, I had previously not examined the issue and merely skimmed it, however that has little to do with this. I think you are only attempting to falsify a link to that, so as to sweep me under the carpet. You are to quick to discredit the article in question, despite the fact that it contains direct links to statements in question. I could find several other sources that quotes Falwell as saying that the Anti-Christ will be a Jew. Do you see that as a joke?
The article quotes Falwell when he makes a stereotypical remark about Jews in general. Obviously the stereotyping of an entire race is racism. JamesLipton 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
So, you called me anti-Semitic (1) before examing any evidence (2) based upon lies another user admitted were without foundation. With an appolgy, I will be be happy to forget the whole matter.
As to Rev. Falwell, I've contacted him and am waiting to hear from him.
The article wrenches a joke out of context Rev. Falwell is making to an audience which criticizes real anti-Semites. It was strectch for this author to spew this garbage, and I see no reason anyone should repeat such obvious lies and distortions. RobS 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I was crossing the line a bit with the calling you an anti-semite and not reading into another matter more closely before commenting on it, but i still maintain the opinion that the article should show both sides of the issue, perhapes weasel words would be more applicable in this situation. Also I still carry the opinion that Falwell only wants two things of my kind, that we convert to Christianity, or that we burn in hell. JamesLipton 22:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
When you are ready to appologize for an egregious breach of civility, I'd be happy to engage the discussion on the appropriate discussion page. RobS 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I do not believe it to be "an egregious breach of civility", but I will apologize for accusing you of antisemitism. I do still believe that my previous edit was appropriate, but I will be more ambiguous and use a more direct source next time. JamesLipton 16:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Apology accepted and thank you. I move we adjourn to Talk:Anti-Semitism now. RobS 20:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Old Alerts

Could people at least reply on the talk page for the breast exam page for WHY they keep deleting the non offensive image? If that's offensive, then this is going to end up being an amazingly tiny encyclopedia. It doesn't show anything rude, as I said on the talk page, yet it's gone once again. --ALFa 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
This is going to be a very tiny encyclopedia. That's sort of the point, unfortunately. --Scrap 22:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Folks, I deleted that stuff about breast exams. Go look in your Encyclopedia Britannica and see if you find voyeurism like that. You won't, and it shouldn't be here either.--Aschlafly 18:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Due respect, Andy, but you will... you will find anatomical pictures of breasts, etc. But then again, in an EB, you'll also not find outright censorship of material on evolution.-AmesG 20:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The desire by so many (present company excluded) to teach about sex has really been an eye-opener for me. There appear to be millions of people wanting to teach about sex! Virtually none of them become doctors, or even go into health professions. Virtually none want to become real teachers. But it's amazing how many want to be teachers of sex-related topics!--Aschlafly 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Woot! Sign me up!--Raytrotter 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Can't say I understood that. Sorry. But, first, breast exams are not sex. They're cancer prevention. Second, teaching about safe sex prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion.-AmesG 21:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL, "teaching about sex", "voyeurism", ahahaah. Sorry but those are just the complete wrong terms to use. First of all, a picture of a *covered* breast couldn't possibly relate to sex. I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. And how it is voyeurism I will never know, since that would theoretically be a pervert watching someone through a window without them knowing it, or something similar. This is a diagram used to help prevent Breast Cancer. They were definately fully aware of a photo being taken, are covering themselves, and aren't doing anything sexual. But whatever, if you want to be afraid of a bare stomach being shown, inflict censorship, by all means. --ALFa 23:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Can somebody delete please? The page got moved away from its proper space, but the move can't be undone since the moving user also removed the redirect (thus giving the page an actual edit history). If somebody deleted the redirecting page, the move could be reverted --Sid 3050 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Quick edit to add: I'm not sure if the user had the aim of vandalizing the page, but I figured that most admins check in here for maintenance tasks --Sid 3050 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Addressed.--Elamdri 02:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Could I ask for another favor in that line? Delete the current copy-pasted Talk page (as of now, no new content has been added to it) content and do a real page move from Usertalk:RobS to User talk:RobS? That way, the edit history stays intact, and the old page simply turns into a redirect. --Sid 3050 11:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Czolgolz seems to be faking posts by copying User:Bill M's posts and/or simply faking sigs. See [8] and [9] for an example, but it's definitely not the only one (check Czolgolz's contribs). --Sid 3050 14:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Thanks, Ed! --Sid 3050 14:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Reporting obscenity

User "Hal jordan" posted obscenity here. In addition to being blocked, his full IP address and other identifying information have been reported to Road Runner with the request that it take immediate action against him for posting obscenity to a website used by minors under the age of 16.--Aschlafly 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A Soft Layer Technologies system in Dallas was the source of a different obscenity by a user. The user has been blocked and the owner of the server has been notified at .--Aschlafly 20:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Removing users

I've warned him. Please alert me if he does it again.--Elamdri 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
There's no evidence the dozen or so people he calls Evolutionists are Evolutionists; to me it looks like trolling. RobS 00:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry - I meant to put Michael Moore as an Evolutionist, but I was too fast on the copy and paste. I was trying to add an evolutionist tag as appropriate, and I don't know a better way than to just browse random articles - so they are random, sort-of. Smile 00:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, I'm willing to give you some leeway with this as you aren't doing the usual vandalism stuff. But back up those evolutionist tags ok? And cut out the mammal stuff.--Elamdri 00:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Skin Flute may have earned you a ban. [13] And these could be speedied. [14][15] RobS 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I gave him one week; there's a lot of nonsense there, but some stuff is bordereline. RobS 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I almost blocked him last night, but thought perhaps it best to give more of an opportunity to be constructive. His edits have not been clear vandalism, though I agree at least one seems silly. Maybe he'll get serious.--Aschlafly 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
REPLY: blocked for infinite duration, and his vandalism has been rolled back. We also have his IP address and ISP.--Aschlafly 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Sisyphus, Microscope, prank/parody article: "Microscopes are purportedly instruments that enable the user to view objects smaller than the eye is capable of visualizing... Microscopes are frequently used by scientists, such as those arguing in favor of human cloning, stem cell research, and evolution... little investigation has been done into the possibility that microscopes may cause the existence of the very microbes they purport to offer us a glimpse at. It is also possible that the scientific method may itself be at fault." Dpbsmith 19:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
REPLY: blocked for one week for his one edit, which was inappropriate. Good decision here by another SYSOP (Geo). Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • User:Scriabin and User:Familyman, for subtle vandalism in their creation of the original articles on Johann Sebastian Bach and Bach, johann sebastian (now a redirect). They highlight a problem that concerns me: both of these articles, as created, are poisonous mixes of valid information with misinformation that is subtle enough to escape notice by people who don't know the subject, while ludicrous enough to arouse the derision of those who do. Johann Sebastian Bach said that Bach composed "a C Minor Mass." If he did, it's obscure, whereas his B Minor Mass is celebrated; Mozart wrote a famous C Minor Mass. That could be a typo. Saying Bach composed The Diabelli Variations (which are by Beethoven) can't be. The original version of Bach, johann sebastian goes over the top when it says "The title of his collection Bach's Great Organ Works is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." OK, maybe not-so-subtle vandalism. Dpbsmith 18:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Familyman has been blocked, and upon Dpbsmith's comments above I also blocked Scriabin. But upon further extensive investigation I couldn't find evidence justifying a block of Scriabin, so I have unblocked him. I have an open mind about this and welcome comments by others. I'm particularly reluctant to disagree with Dpbsmith, who has almost always been right here and has been with us since nearly the beginning. Thanks, Dpbsmith!--Aschlafly 10:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
(You're welcome!) Dpbsmith 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT) P. S. Since it wasn't at all obvious (and still isn't) that Scriabin's edit represented abuse, and since he wasn't making rapid edits, I should have asked him about this on his Talk page instead of going here. I've now done so now. Dpbsmith 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Scriabin and I have exchanged mutual apologies. Dpbsmith 08:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I am reporting user: Conservative He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--Dave3172 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Eric Mukherjee. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. Dpbsmith 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
(removed names - these people may not be involved. Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)--AustinM 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. Dpbsmith 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

user: JC is a suspected vandal. Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything. (AustinM)

What is going on?
Conservative gets granted exclusive rights to put the creationist view on the Theory of evolution article. AustinM banns JC for putting the creationist view on other articles, claiming it is vandalism. AustinM then goes and vandalizes the Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Guantanamo Bay detention camp articles. Are Conservatives fighting amongst each other in order to decide whose version of reality gets to be the definitive one? Can't wait for the SYSOPs banning SYSOPs melee.
This site is an endless source of surreal entertainment. I can't really see anyone taking it seriously as an encyclopedia.
I assume I'll get banned for pointing that out.
WhatIsGoingOn 15:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Handy jargon: on Wikipedia, this is known as a "wheel war." Dpbsmith 19:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Interesting, I always idly wondered about that term means (and always forgot to look it up), so thanks for the info! --Sid 3050 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Niandra did infact ban WhatIsGoingOn for his/her one and only contribution - on a talk page. I take it freedom of speech (obscenity aside) isn't part of the Conservapedia philosophy, or is stating uncomfortable truths considered vandalism here?
Will I now get banned too?
WhatIsG0ing0n 06:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)


The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation. It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated. For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate!

In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out. Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue. That should be different here! Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity. Facts are still facts. But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge. Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.

I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues. All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church. There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us. God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions. But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity. As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited.

Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing? Thank you,

PD Popejoy

All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.
They, on the other hand would disagree. Are we going with Truth By Headcount, now? If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow. --Scrap 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure where this stands now, and I apologize for being late on this discussion. But I wanted to say this: let's avoid using the word "cult" to describe any group. It seems overly pejorative and not encyclopedic. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Mr. Schlafly is correct. Too many words are bandied about all over the Net. Jim Jones, of Jonestown--Peoples Temple infamy, he ran a "Cult". So think of him, and his tragedy, before applying that word. Last I checked, neither the JW's or LDS people were telling their people to drink Kool-aid laced with poison, so they could cross over and meet Jesus.

Blocked user:JesusSaves for three days. Reason for it was in repeated inclusion of a nonsensical line in the article Genesis, and his decision to begin and escalate an argument about it. When given a last warning to stop, he continued. It's documented on the Genesis talk page. Karajou 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to tell you, this is a mirror image of when Conservative blocked AmesG. Karajou, you were involved in a personal dispute with the user and should probably get a fellow sysop to sign off on that.
From Talk:Genesis "If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)"
The fight was with you... get a neutral sysop to go with you... you probably had a case but booting him yourself removes your moral authority. Myk 20:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I reviewed this debate betwen Karajou and JesusSaves at length. While blocking is always a last resort, it is appropriate when someone is repeatedly interfering with productive work. Karajou could have locked the page, but that would have prevented others from contributing to this work-in-progress.
JesusSaves should have deferred to the person doing the most work on the entry (Karajou). It's not right for a bystander to come along and repeatedly insist on placing a dot somewhere in the Mona Lisa as Da Vinci paints it. Karajou warned JesusSaves repeatedly, and even then blocked him for only 3 days.
Put another way, we don't allow a heckler's veto here. Some professional courtesy and deference is appropriate, and Karajou need not divert his efforts to track down other SYSOPs in this situation. I hope JesusSaves will return and not insist on his same edit yet again.--Aschlafly 21:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Personaly, I did not like the thought of having him, or anyone else for that matter, removed from the site. I think a better preference for myself at least would be to contact another sysop or Aschlafly for arbitration should another incident happen. Karajou 13:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I responded on your talk page. MountainDew 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Long-term tasks

I made a "short" list of redirects that still exist after the "on wheels" move vandalism. I believe they should be cleaned up... But instead of actually editing fifty redirect pages to include them in the "Speedy Delete" category, I just compiled a list at User:Sid 3050/Deletion List. I also included the Delete links AND lined them up in a nifty column so you can just click away if you like. (Yes, I've been having far too much fun with regular expression replacements there. I'm weird like that.) =P --Sid 3050 23:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Did someone beat me to it? I tried and there was nothing to delete for everything I clicked. Thanks for your superb list!!!--Aschlafly 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, whatever. MountainDew reacted to the call within minutes, so you should praise him. --Sid 3050 21:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)