User talk:Jimmy

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Take a better look to the the article Gettysburg Address. There are the words.

"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 12:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

What are you trying to say? The words 'under God' were added after I pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the Breaking News item. Check the history, --Jimmy 19:29, 19 November 2007 (EST)

We have to thank you for your comment. Now the article is better... But in your first comment you did not mention the words "under God". Next time may be you could be more specific. Is that asking to much? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:51, 19 November 2007 (EST)

The main subject of the news item was the phrase "under God". I didn't think repeating the wording of the phrase was all that critical in getting my point across. It seems at least one person, Schlafly, was able to understand what I was talking about. My request to you is to put a little more research into your responses before asking people to "take a better look." Thanks --Jimmy 00:21, 20 November 2007 (EST)

We were in the middle of a Contest, but even we were in normal times it is too much work for a Sysop to read every word of every comment. Your comment was NOT clear enough. Also, I find your reply lack of kindness. Could it change? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 18:43, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well now, this is going from bad to worse. Your attitude is making me wonder why I even pointed out the error of the Gettysburg article in the first place. I would appreciate it if you would just let this matter drop, because face it, you made a mistake.

The comment I made was short and to the point. The founder of this website understood what I was talking about and thanked me for my efforts. If you have a problem with spending two seconds to read the 20+ words I wrote, then maybe you should reevaluate your way of conducting your role as an editor.

As for my alleged lack of kindness, you are the one that said I should “take a better look” even though you failed to take ten seconds to point, click, and read the history of the Gettysburg article. Doesn’t that sound hypocritical? It is the carelessness on your part that has resulted in this meaningless exchange. Is this what I am to expect from the majority of sysops on this website? I hope not. --Jimmy 19:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Your help in this matter has been fine and noticed. It has been grateful for by Andy and by me. There is no doubt about it. We encourage you to keep helping CP. What I can not accept is to see it as a mistake.
You started writing:
The article on the Gettysburg Address is concise and to the point, yet it does not contain the phrase attributed to it by the 'Breaking News' section.
And the phrase was: "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That phrase was in the article with the difference that 2 words were not there: "under God".
I feel that CP needs a lot of new articles and improve many of old ones. I feel that we do not have enough time for guessing what users want to say. Is that a mistake?
About "kindness", personally, I am in a city where this is important. But, don't worry, I can survive as far as now. Let see the future!

--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 08:12, 21 November 2007 (EST)

The news item in question was entirely about how Lincoln inserted the phrase “under God” in his address. It was obvious to me what I was talking about and it appeared to be obvious to Schlafly what I was talking about. Yet to you for some reason, it was not. Maybe if you had read my entire comment without skipping over part of it you would have understood what I was talking about.
It’s ironic how you attach a lot of importance to kindness while at the same time starting your introduction to me with a snarky comment about my post.--Jimmy 20:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
Fine. Schlafly could knew what to do because it was him who wrote the news. But a normal human may not as happens to me. That is why I ask you again to be more specific.
I am sure you can go to the beginning of the page and read how I started: WELCOME, WAS HE FIRST WORD... GO [1]--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 23:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This was the Breaking news in question: On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln inserted "under God" into an already-prepared Gettysburg Address and declared, "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Your editing

Yes that's right, the editors must provide documentation to back up what they write. The editors must also not be divisive. Since this encyclopedia is in the beginning stages, the editors must work together to build it up properly. Do you follow now? I looked at the majority of your edits which are mostly to the talk pages and you are walking a fine line between being devisive and being outright contemptuous, and it isn't just the talk page on public schools; its others as well, begining with your first edits regarding the Gettysburg Address back in November. Now if you want to make those valid contributions as you said, then you need to learn to work with the rest of us; if there's a lack of source material, then you need to swallow your pride and either respectfully ask the person involved or find it yourself. If you don't want to do any of the above, you know where the door is. Karajou 16:55, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Thank-you for finally admitting what is right. Following the rules and making suggestions for improvement is not being divisive or whining. Don't you get it? I'm the guy that's playing by the rules, making valid contributions, providing references, asking for references from unsupported assertions, etc. I'm doing all this to IMPROVE Conservapedia! What are you doing other than giving me grief for NOT violating any rules and insisting others follow them?
My very first contribution to this website was to point out an error on the main page and the website founder thanked me for doing so. Yet all that has happened with that bit of helpful information was to be basically treated like crap by Joaquín Martínez.
Why don't we talk about the majority of my edits, which don't violate the rules by the way.
- First edit: talk page sugestion, thanked by founder
- Next four edits: responding to syop that misinterpreted what I wrote and refused to admit his mistake.
- Next eight edits: contributed to two articles on schools. One edit was on the talk page for clarification
- Next three edits: quotes with references to the Atheism Quotes article and one talk comment on why my contributions were reverted without explanation.
- Evolution talk page: trying to improve the content but my contributions are limited because the article is edited and locked by one person.
See where this is going? I am working with others by making contributions. You are giving me a hard time when I insist that articles have a certain measure of quality and insist that people provide references. I'm working hard enough to provide my own references to the material I write without trying to find references to someone else's assertions that I think are incorrect. I'm treating people with respect, but if their opinions or assertions are lacking supporting documentation I will let them know, just as I have been doing. --Jimmy 17:29, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Your block

You were warned by an admin above about your editing. Today you removed Aschlafly's edits to the ACLU article while adding your own. This is NOT allowed. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. When you return, if you argue with me or another admin or continue editing in a confrontational style, you will receive a permanent block. --Crocoite 15:03, 14 February 2008 (EST)

No problem, Jimmy

I calls em like I sees em. You were blocked unfairly. I'm only glad that someone listened. SSchultz 23:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks and sorry!

Your support after my block was much appreciated! I do apologize for getting you blocked, though. :( --DHayes 22:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Not a problem. No need to apologize for my block, it wasn't your fault. I have the feeling I'll be blocked again shortly. Wish me luck. --Jimmy 00:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)


I like the humour on your user page. So true my friend, so true AdenJ 00:23, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. At times, laughter is the best medicine.--Jimmy 00:26, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Where laughter fails, whisky will prevail! AdenJ 00:28, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Copying from Wikipedia

All you did was change or omit a few words. You used many of the same phrasings and almost exactly the same sentence-by-sentence layout.

Your first paragraph:

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case # 04cv2688, was a challenge brought in the United States federal court against a public school that required teachers to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origins of life. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism and the school's policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Lemon Test.

From Wikipedia:

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "Intelligent Design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Your second paragraph:

The plaintiffs, eleven parents of students at the Dover Area School District, sued the school board over a statement in support of Intelligent design that was to be read aloud during science classes when evolution was taught. The parents were represented by American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center.


Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center

Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Most likely it's [un]intelligent design.

As far as other edits you've made, yes, I have had a problem with some of them when they are obviously meant to undermine the purpose of Conservapedia. I replaced your quotes about atheism to fit the intended purpose of the article. Jinxmchue 22:07, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

If you don't like it, leave

You're welcome to leave CP if you don't like it. Just a suggestion. You probably will find your edits under heavier scrutiny by myself and others from now on anyway and I doubt you'll enjoy that.

In any case, don't post to my talk page anymore. You and your rhetoric are not welcome there. Jinxmchue 11:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Comments deleted from Jinxmchue's talk page posted here for posterity

Your reasoning for removing my edit is quite inane in my honest opinion. The only thing I remotely 'copied' from Wikipedia was the format of the article. It is plainly obvious you did not look at all of the references. If you did, then you would have discovered that every word I wrote was paraphrased from the references or written by myself. Replacing my article with the misleading, opinionated, and unreferenced factoids is doing this encyclopedia a disfavor. Judges Jones never admitted being an activist judge. The reference in the original article was a glaring example of the authors misrepresenting Jones' actions and words. I even provided a reference saying that he denied being an activist judge. My edit even left in the solitary reference from the original article so I could reference the criticism Jones received.

The original article contained five items of fact and opinion and only one, the opinion, was backed up with a reference. Your revision resulted in a violation of the first commandment about everything in articles being 'true and verifiable'. So much for you making Conservapedia a 'reliable resource'.

I made a request for change over two months ago and nobody said a word. I made a change to an article and listed the required references then you come along and base your revision on something that was obviously not thought out. I'd like to think a responsible editor would ask questions instead of making wholesale deletions without any discussion. Since you claim to be the 'rightful leader of Conservapedia', maybe I shouldn't direct my opinions to another administrator and instead just try and reason out this disagreement between the two of us. --Jimmy 20:21, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

As an editor, you are not very impressive. I followed the Conservapedia Manual of Style almost to the letter. The fact that Wikipedia and Conservapedia have similar formats apparently did not cross your mind. My article contained information the WP article did not and vice versa. It also included references that mentioned every fact outlined in the first paragraph, something the WP article did not. Just because an article looks like it may have been copied from WP doesn't mean it has been.

Conservapedia's detractors call this 'trustworthy encyclopedia' Idiotopedia, and you are giving them plenty of ammunition. Your revision resulted in an article that is completely untrue and unverifiable; and in my honest opinion, a very stupid article at that. One of my main goals is to correct these dumb articles so Americans don't look bad. It looks like I am failing. If you insist on making the job of Conservapedia's critics that much easier, go right ahead, you are accomplishing plenty. --Jimmy 19:59, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

You seem to have a problem with my editing. Instead of removing my Atheism quotes and replacing them with your own, why don't you just add yours? Your opinion of 'better' leaves a bit to be desired I'm afraid. --Jimmy 20:26, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Kitzmiller edit

I will take a look at it later tonight in the interest of fairness, though I have not been following the article controversy. I'm not promising anything, but I feel that it is only fair that your edit at least be reviewed rather than simply rejected on the basis of who you are. DanH 16:56, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks --Jimmy 17:11, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
I do think that the edits were close enough to Wikipedia's that a reversion was justified, but I find it unfair that Conservapedia claims to treat editors better than Wikipedia but will not provide reasons for reversions upon requests. DanH 02:15, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough, and thanks for your consideration. What is to be done about the article now? The current article is basically a piece of junk that makes Conservapedia look bad. Would it be too much to ask that my edit be restored with changes? Almost anything would be better than what is there now. As far as unfair treatment is concerned, I am quite used to it by now; at least you are a sysop that will discuss the matter. I tried to engage DeanS about the article and Jinxmchue's comments towards me and his only response was to delete my request from his talk page. EdPoor didn't respond to my inquiry about my block over the article either. Thanks again. --Jimmy 10:25, 25 May 2008 (EDT)


Which images do you want? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 07:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Anythng suitable for the article, not very fussy. --Jimmy 19:39, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Tyrants behind keyboards?

The user that you chose to interfere in someone else's business was blocked because he chose to engage in an edit war with an admin involving personal attack. If he brought evidence which supported his claim and engaged in dialogue respectfully, the block would not have happened. And if certain users think they can throw their weight around here; if certain users think they can engage in edit conflicts on a whim; if certain users think they can demand to place whatever they want on this site, they have another thing coming to them. You were removed for three days for interfering in what was never your business as well as the above. If anyone is trying to play tyrant, it is you. You came to Conservapedia with an agenda to interfere with the conservatism on this site; you came here to push your own liberalism. It's stopping now. Karajou 13:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


If you take a look at Examples of Bias in Wikipedia you will no doubt notice that a {{fact}} template makes something have much less force and seem untrue. If you wish to find a source, find a source and make this a better place. Don't make it seem untrue. The Clinton comment is incorrect as Clinton was not president when the data was given. --TrueValues 20:36, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I am well aware of the Wikipedia bias article. I am also well aware of the commandments of this encyclopedia that state every claim must be referenced. I am also well aware of the guidelines that state citation tags can be used for unreferenced claims. The question is why are you making such a fuss over matters that can be readily remedied by providing a reference --Jimmy 20:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor blocked me for a week because I refused to knuckle under and believe a lie that was posted at the Liberal Creep page. The following item was deleted from the talk page in question and is posted here for posterity. --Jimmy 22:24, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly: You stated Wikipedia was in error because they didn't mention Newton's fundamentalism, yet they used the exact same words and reference that the Conservapedia article used. Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily." John H. Tiner. Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, ISBN 0-91513406-3. Care to explain this discrepancy? If Wikipedia is concealing Newton's motivation, then why is this line attributed to him? "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." It is contained in the "Isaac Newton's religious views" article.
Ed: My error? Where? All I did was make a perfectly reasonable request for citations and look at all the flack I am getting. Mr. Schlafly makes an error yet you have nothing to say to him. I am contributing to this encyclopedia by researching and writing, look at my contributions page. Please stop making unfounded accusations. If the people contributing to this article would actually provide valid references, I would be able to spend a lot more time making quality contributions to the NASA article instead of trying to get people to provide the references they should have researched to begin with.--Jimmy 21:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Admin warning

  • Your attitude is making me wonder

See Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks. --Ed Poor Talk 11:16, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Um, I think he hasn't edited since February... (About the time he was eternally blocked...) DLerner 11:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Then who wrote this? --Ed Poor Talk 11:22, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
I've been in Australia too long, I got the eight and the two mixed up.... DLerner 11:26, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Revision as of 12:37, 2 August 2008 (edit) (undo)

What eight? It says August, man. --Ed Poor Talk 11:31, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Pardon me, but if one were to go up to "my preferences", select the "Date and Time" tab, the options allow for a "numerals ONLY" date format. I'm guessing this is what DLerner has set for his browser. Marge 12:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Correct. DLerner 12:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)