From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to the Desk

BarrettWallace (Talk | contribs)

User should be deleted and IP blocked; contribs make it obvious Learn together 04:23, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

We can't IP block him, he has a dynamic IP or is using a proxy server.--Elamdri 04:25, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

That's unfortunate since Thomasa (Talk | contribs) appears to be the same. Learn together 04:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

He just keeps making usernames based on the Final Fantasy video game series, which make him easy to stop, but he's changing his IP, which makes it harder to block him.

01geennaam01 (Talk | contribs)


Has been infinitely blocked. DanH 16:13, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Final Fantasy Seven Vandalism

There are many subtle changes to the article that are inaccurate and satirical. Such as AVALANCHE being a "hockey team" and Cloud being an "ex-US Marine". I suggest it be completely re-written.

Why don't you delete the recently added article about Woody Allen?

That article is just great. Really "nuanced". It is a shining example of a great contribution to this site. Wismike

There is a difference between a biography and a piece dealing with opinion information. I believe if you were to create small biographies on notable people that you would not see your work removed. I also believe that you are probably aware of the difference, but are complaining simply because you do not like it. Learn together 13:44, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
I really don't disagree with you. Sysop Conservative originally stated that my article was not "nuanced". By pointing out some articles that are very small, incomplete and lop-sided I was trying to show that writing an "un-nuanced" article was not cause for deletion, it is cause for editing. Also, this particular article on Woody Allen is only a biography in disguise. When the only thing you can highlight about the life and career of a celebrated and revered actor, writer and director is that he married his 27 years old adopted daughter, it is an opinion piece. Respectfully Wismike
Woody Allen is an important biographical figure and isn't going to be deleted (of course). The beauty of this site is that you can add Woody's accomplishments in other areas and fill out his biopgraphy. But please understand as well that in a site that wishes to provide a family values environment, that Woody's conduct that could be considered to have gone over that line is fair game. On the other hand, articles that by their very nature deal with opinion information can be held to a different standard. Conservative is a trusted and respected Sysop who has many thousands of edits and has contributed greatly to the Conservapedia site. It may be best to work with what he told you to create an article that can address his concerns. And, as you also see, your concerns are being taken seriously. A number of important Sysops have given their input, and TK has even tried to email you your original work. While it is sometimes difficult, the key is not to take the article removal personally, but to work with the information you have been given to produce a more universally accepted product. Learn together 14:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)


new user:liberalsrulelol created offensive spam article "Horus" --Lorrie 22:48, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, is this the right way to report spam? Seemed to be but I'm not sure. --Lorrie 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, took care of the problem--Tash 22:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Relativity page

Dear Sirs, I was extremely troubled when after having submitted my site, Relativity Calculator [ ], as an External Link to that it was arbitrarily removed presumably by either the editor of the page or more likely the submitter of the one and only external link to a page regarding Lorentz! Why was this done?? I mean, my site Relativity Calculator is loaded with the mathematics of relativity including,,,,,,,,,,,, and presently I'm working on showing how mass of earth, sun, etc. are determined from Galileo's g, Kepler's Harmonic Law and Newton's Universal Constant G. I mean, you folks should be grateful that someone like myself found your Wiki!! And, now, because of some idiot who threw out the link to my home page on and then went and complained like some baby to you because this jerk didn't like something or other regarding Relativity Calculator that my submission ability has effectively been terminated. You would sincerely do well to reestablish my association with your Wiki because frankly your Google PRs are practically zero as it is. Let me know your decision soon. And if you decide to allow my site back in, I would suggest that the first allowable edit will be to reestablish my Relativity Calculator site back into External Links at Otherwise, please drop me forever from your list -- delist me forever that is! Period. End of this discussion! Let me know today, not tomorrow or next year. Don Saar,, Relativity Calculator,

Reference: From Prof. Max Tegmark, MIT:

Here otherwise is what I received from a Professor Tegmark, MIT, last evening, and I accept as a mark of recognition:

From:tegmark@MIT.EDU Subject: Re: Reciprocal Link Exchange Request Date: February 5, 2007 9:29:44 PM EST To: Cc:

Hi Don, Thanks for your message. This indeed looks like a nice site. The page you mention is merely a tombstone for a past course and won't be edited further, but I'll keep this in mind if I teach this relativity course again. Thanks again,


Prof. Max Tegmark Dept. of Physics, MIT 70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B Cambridge, MA 02139

Continuing via email. link in article as of now. Geo.Complain! 18:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Wrongly block from Conservapedia

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

  • Billy J. Guin
  • Allison R. Kolb
  • Hall M. Lyons
  • Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans
  • and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn


I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[1]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the night-editing restrictions?
If you are still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
Philip J. Rayment 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. Jallen 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Unblocking User:LardoBolger?

I've been trying to get my account unblocked (Lardo Bolger) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though I'm not Atheist.

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I apologize for not understanding what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. PhilB 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) LardoBolger 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)


POV pusher. TheEvilSpartan 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Began vandalizing after I warned him. ThomasB 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Andy's dealt with him. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both Democrats and Republicans have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.[1] However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."[2] Chris Mooney, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."[3] During that same period, he was planning to run for the House of Representatives, which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for U.S. Senate, in which he defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes, also an African American.[4]

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--ElliottRosewater 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked Jimmy simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at Talk: Obama on rifles that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his block notice that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. SSchultz 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)

How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? Philip J. Rayment 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? SSchultz 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Is there no response? SSchultz 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
Philip J. Rayment 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Block of SSchultz

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the O'Bannon article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. Philip J. Rayment 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Index item - Bible is for C**ts

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

Censored words

When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource. AdenJ 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. Philip J. Rayment 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing. AdenJ 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't be a d***. --Ed Poor Talk 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Severe abuse of power by Karajou

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can find it here, if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore put this message there, supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":

Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. Karajou 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library today and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)
Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Separate Section

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--jp 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the minor changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --Jareddr 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

TerryH threats and blocking.

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --DinsdaleP 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--Jareddr 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. Bugler 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --Jareddr 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. Bugler 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. Bugler 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
  • Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that was DannyRedful.
  • He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
  • Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to not do something that is not his job to do?
So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
Philip J. Rayment 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: How is it an offence to not do something that is not his job to do?

It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. Bugler 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr didn't remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email ("It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [2][3][4][5][6][7].
I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. StatsMsn 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr was removing the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was helping you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained why he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
Philip J. Rayment 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he knew they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. Bugler 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr knew that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. Philip J. Rayment 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the Hollywood Values article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. ---user:DLerner--- 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Joaquin Martinez

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. Wandering 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). Philip J. Rayment 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with Greek influence on Western Culture with Joaquin is getting absurd. This was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. My version is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. He proceeded to add a bit of good material and some other things. I incorporated his material and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. After several people questioned him, Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found here. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I did remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? HenryS 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)