From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The daily quote

The daily quote, as of June 28, 2007, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." (Abraham Lincoln, letter to Henry L. Pierce and others, April 6, 1859), is anti republican, as a large belief of the republican population is anti gay marriage, even though many of them are straight and married. According to this quote, that means that those people that are anti gay marriage, staight, and married, should not be allowed to marry. While I do respect Abraham Lincoln, I believe this quote is anti republican.

There are those right now who are trying to deny our right to free speech, the right of an unborn child to live, the right to observe our religious tenents publicly, or the right to keep our property from being seized through eminent domain. Those people are called liberals, and Lincoln's quote is exactly on target. Karajou 14:45, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Huh? According to this quote, gay rights advocates got nothing to worry about, cause those who "deny freedom to others" cannot long retain their own.

Question is, how did the folks who "denied freedom to gays" from 1859 until now retain their own freedom? RobS

Your information on Octane is not very informative.

I worked for Amoco Oil for 35 years before retiring in 1998. I'm willing to provide a much more difinitive discussion of gasoline octane and what it means.

Please advise if you would like me to submit this information. However, I don't think that this kind of technical information should be open to modification by those who don't know what they are talking about.

You need to consider having reader editing pass through some sort of on-line editor or administrator who can check these changes before they are posted on your site. You should not simply follow the Wikipedia model on this issue.

SilverMax Colorado Springs, CO

Direct copying from Wikipedia?

What is the procedure if a Conservapedia article is found that is a direct copy from its Wikipedia counterpart? Jinkas 16:56, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

I remove. Niandra talk 10:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Banning of Jazzman831

(First of all, this is a sock account. I'm very sorry for doing this, but nobody is responding to their email.)

I would like to question my (Jazzman831) permanent ban by TK. He said I was trolling, but I don't see how I was doing that at all. The only pages he reverted were offshoring, which I fully explained in the talk page, the Innocence Project, in which I only added a {{fact}} tag (which was later added by another user who was not banned for trolling), and Politics of Global Warming, which was a grammatical change.

I don't see how any of these edits are trolling, and even if they are, I don't see how it's fair that I was permanently banned, seeing as how some users are banned for short periods of time for multiple instances of trolling. Not only was I not even given a warning, but I was given no explanation as well. I fear I may have been the victim of a combination of an overzealous sysop and the CP Contest.

By the way, I emailed TK twice and have gotten no response. I have reason to believe he is simply ignoring my requests, as it's pretty obvious he has checked his email since I emailed him (see here)

Thanks, Jazzman831

"nobody" is responding to your e-mail? I didn't get one, so that might explain me not responding. Philip J. Rayment 02:11, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
  • The user was responded to. I was letting him back in, but given this post, perhaps not. I must not be giving fast enough service! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

From: Bryan Metz [1]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:49 PM
To: Terry
Subject: RE: Conservapedia e-mail

I don't know why you can't email me from my page. I think there is something wrong with the whole email system; your email was somehow dated July 9th!

And yes, I'm claiming that my edits were innocent. As I said in my last email, you only reverted three of my edits; one was placing a {{fact}} tag on an unsourced statement, one was a grammatical change, and the last was fully explained on the talk page. I have made over 100 other edits; none of which were reverted. I did know that I was actually editing CP, but I thought I was improving it, in good faith.

As for Wikipedia, I do edit over there, but certainly not enough to pretend to know how they do things over there. I can assure you I'm not taking anything from there and assuming that's how it works here.

Thanks again,

From: "Terry" <>
To: "'Jazzman831'" <>
Subject: RE: Conservapedia e-mail
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:09:02 -0700

Certainly, sorry...don't show a previous email, although without you enabling email through your preferences on CP, I cannot initiate email to you.

So, you are claiming, if I have this right, that totally innocent editing on your part was the case? Perhaps I am mistaken in assuming you knew you were tweaking CP by some of your edits? Perhaps because you think the way things are done on Wikipedia, is the end all, and be all, of the universe? Is that, in essence what you are trying to say?

You can IM me direct, if you wish: CPSysop_TK on Yahoo or Exculpatory1 on AIM.

||| TK

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Jazzman831 [2]
|Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 4:14 PM
|To: TK
|Subject: Conservapedia e-mail
| |I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have not yet recieved a reply to my |email. Hopefully something was just caught in a spam filter somewhere. | |I'm emailing to ask why you blocked me yesterday. I do not think that I was |trolling, and none of the edits of mine you reverted were that bad; one of |which has since been reverted back to the way I had it. If you could please |explain your reasoning to me it would be greatly appreciated.
| |Thanks again,

I'm not sure what's going on, but there were some email problems on both ends. I now believe TK did not recieve my initial message, and it was unfair of me to assume he ignored me. Also due to the email problems, I did not realize he had sent me an email before I posted here. I appologize to TK for jumping to conclusions, and for falsely accusing him of foulplay. Our issues are not yet worked out, but now that we have established a working line of communication I do not believe I need this public forum anymore.
Thanks, and sorry to the sysops who man the Desk,