Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
this person was blocked. Guessing it was due to being a troll
Line 157: Line 157:     
I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)
 
I think it should be made clear that the username '''must''' include your real name, as opposed to ''recommending'' your real name; perhaps there could be a help page on Conservapedia's username policy. A few users have been blocked for violating an otherwise nonexistent policy (and also advised to create an account with a real name even though their account creation is disabled for two years). A clear username policy would probably be beneficial for Conservapedia. -- [[User:DanielJackson|DanielJackson]] 10:46, 6 December 2014 (EST)
−
  −
== Conservatives "Message Area" ==
  −
  −
I seem to be unable to edit it, despite wanting to discuss something with him. As such I put out a general request for a way to contact him or for him to unlock his message area. Hopefully I'm not missing something really obvious! [[User:Nhodgson|Nhodgson]] 20:18, 6 December 2014 (EST)
  −
  −
:You would do well to just ignore him.  There's really nothing that you could discuss with him.  He is notoriously secretive, seeming to believe that other people go along with his games, and he often locks his own talk page, and the talk pages of his "pet" articles.  He seems to expect other people to go along with his fantasy that he might be multiple people.  Just ignore him.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:37, 6 December 2014 (EST)
  −
::If we could talk to him, we might tell him that his reversion of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&curid=3942&diff=1121083&oldid=1084045 this] on purely political grounds was ludicrous and shows a serious failure to observe what is going on.  That edit was more than just a minor thing about whether Lincoln was a "classical liberal" or a "post New Deal progressive"—it was blatant and outrageous vandalism, about which most admins are very vigilant.  The user ("TheonlySIL", whatever that means) should be blocked permanently.  Perhaps some other admin will notice.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:48, 6 December 2014 (EST)
  −
Setting aside SamHB's axe to grind because I/we are pro-biblical creationism and anti-Darwinism/liberal Christianity, my/our talk page has just been unlocked.
  −
  −
By the way SamHB, what do you think about the data contained in this article: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] ? Can you refute it? It does not appear so!  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 7 December 2014 (EST)
 
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,801

edits

Navigation menu