Changes

We should get a handle on this quickly. See [[Open letter to Andy Schlafly]]. It's pretty obvious that is what a Senior Admin has done and intends to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]} 12:11, September 15, 2025 (EDT)

We should get a handle on this quickly. See [[Open letter to Andy Schlafly]]. It's pretty obvious that is what a Senior Admin has done and intends to do. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]} 12:11, September 15, 2025 (EDT)

== Second showdown: Whose Admin's content is better?  ==

== Second showdown: Which Admin's content is better?  ==

*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7f970071-5a0b-4b96-ace3-a1690b68ad75 Using objective evidence, is User: Conservative whose user page is at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative a spammer?]: "The content appears relevant to Conservapedia’s audience and purpose. While the user’s contributions reflect a clear ideological perspective, this is not equivalent to spamming... Based on the provided document, there is no objective evidence that User:Conservative is a spammer. Their contributions are substantial, aligned with Conservapedia’s ideological mission, and recognized by external sources, indicating quality and relevance. The absence of commercial promotion, the user’s administrative role, and their focus on curated, thematically consistent content further suggest they are a dedicated editor rather than a spammer."

*[https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_7f970071-5a0b-4b96-ace3-a1690b68ad75 Using objective evidence, is User: Conservative whose user page is at https://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative a spammer?]: "The content appears relevant to Conservapedia’s audience and purpose. While the user’s contributions reflect a clear ideological perspective, this is not equivalent to spamming... Based on the provided document, there is no objective evidence that User:Conservative is a spammer. Their contributions are substantial, aligned with Conservapedia’s ideological mission, and recognized by external sources, indicating quality and relevance. The absence of commercial promotion, the user’s administrative role, and their focus on curated, thematically consistent content further suggest they are a dedicated editor rather than a spammer."