- 1 same sex marriage revert?
- 2 Vandal
- 3 Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars.
- 4 re: Lenin quote in Bourgeoisie article
- 5 re: your note to me
- 6 Princess and the Frog revert.
- 7 Evolution
- 8 Account promoted
- 9 JohnZ
- 10 I like that
- 11 IRC
- 12 Blocking of User:Misslizzynj
- 13 Length of blocks
- 14 Trolls
- 15 Blocking of User:Whizkid
- 16 Liberal Denial revert?
- 17 Please backup your recent edits
- 18 Islam
- 19 Marijuana article
- 20 Discussing Christian Denominations on This Site
- 21 My Ban
- 22 Sissy punk site
- 23 New show
- 24 Please help defend Catholicism from the baiters!
- 25 Great to see you around again!
- 26 Check this out
- 27 Juvenile Delinquent
- 28 A note about that troll
- 29 Please help formulate the Mission Statement
- 30 Chimpout
- 31 Debate
- 32 Proposal
- 33 Thanks
- 34 re: RobS
- 35 Re: your editing warring with RobS about Obama's birthplace
- 36 Why are you and rob fighting
- 37 RobS' talk page. It's his castle
- 38 There’s no RationalWiki article yet.
- 39 Don't take content disputes to user talk pages. It unnecessarily inflames matters. Keep things on the article talk pages
- 40 Re: latest edit war with RobS
- 41 Friendly invite to a new Conservapedia project
- 42 RobS and Northwest content disputes involving historical matters
- 43 re: your edit to the European migrant crisis article
- 44 Re: Trump Reverts
- 45 Vandal patrol
- 46 Question
- 47 Conservapedia Guidelines
- 48 John Wayne
- 49 Unjustified block
- 50 Earlier I had View source message and couldn't edit?
- 51 Discussion
- 52 Are you also called Northwest on Wikipedia, or is that someone else?
same sex marriage revert?
Greetings, and hope you are well. Just wanted to ask, why the revert of my same-sex marriage page edit?
KatieKomori 10:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- Thank you. When I see an edit of minus five digits on a page like Republican Party, it's pretty obvious that a vandal swept by. Well done. --Pious (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
- Are you sure that was vandalism? It could have been an inadvertent removal of information when he intended on just adding "pro-capitalism" to the article. I have seen numerous times where this has happened, which an editor adding info but for whatever reason accidently removing a whole bunch of information without even knowing it, and in those other times, it was clearly a mistake. I honestly don't see how it was intentional. I request that you review your block. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars.
I noticed the great job you did in expanding the Worst Liberal TV Shows, and was wondering whether you are planning to do something similar regarding the Greatest Conservative TV Shows and the Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies lists (namely the opening paragraphs).
Also, since I noticed you're doing a lot of edits regarding Star Wars currently, I was wondering whether you could expand it to include any real life influences on the characters and franchise. I know that the Empire was largely inspired by America during the time of the Vietnam War, and that the Rebel Alliance was based on the Vietcong (in fact, that's actually the reason why I'm, albeit reluctantly, an Empire supporter now, and probably full time as well). I included a bit regarding Palpatine being directly inspired by Richard Nixon, for example. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+== Okay mate, that's enough! If you want to revert my edits then give me reasons that have more veracity than the weasel words you gave in the Summary of one of the pages.
- I have reread the article(s), struggled through TAR's attached blogs, read your Northwest edit history and have realised you have no real understanding or knowledge of the words involved. Nor do you understand it is not advisable to link to non-existent pages which your reverts always do.
- I am about to revert... again! If you revert me without good reason I will ban you.
- AlanE (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
re: Lenin quote in Bourgeoisie article
re: Bourgeoisie article
AlanE is acting in good faith about the Lenin quote: http://www.azcentral.com/story/claythompson/2014/10/13/lenin-ronald-reagan-quotes/17226727/
If you want to discuss the matter of the historicity of the quote with AlanE on the talk page of the article, here is a useful resource: 7 habits of highly effective historians
re: your note to me
I respond to your email from me.
Princess and the Frog revert.
Just writing because I'm not sure why you reverted the Princess and the Frog removal from Worst Liberal Movies. The movie promoteshard work and family while condemning hedonism and nihilism and p k it's out the danger of accepting handouts and feeling entitled. This seems to me to be a deeply conservative film. --Whizkid (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (EDT)
- Congratulations! You do very good work on this wiki, which I appreciate. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (EST)
Dear Northwest, I changed your two-year block to 1 day for User:JohnZ. While I do not like profanity, I think that we should show a kind and understanding approach to users who have been around for years. Let's give him a second chance, and if he does it again, then we would be justified in coming down hard. This is a volunteer project, and CP wants to avoid a reputation of long-blocks-at-the-drop-of-a-hat. Thank you for your understanding. JDano (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
I like that
Replace "religion" with "ideology™. Because of certain legal issues the US will face in the future, I go out of my way never to refer the a certain collective entity as a "faith" or "religion". " Political system" I use a lot, but haven't of thought of "ideology". We should collect a whole basket of different terms that can be used, and always insert them wherever necessary. Thanks. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:10, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
Blocking of User:Misslizzynj
Length of blocks
Hello Northwest, Andy recently messaged me on my talk page and told me to refrain from using blocks longer than around six months because many people's IP addresses change by then. I see you changed the length of a block for an impersonator of you, and I am not going to challenge that, but please refrain from doing long blocks for non-serious vandalism, per what Andy told me. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
Blocking of User:Whizkid
One comment, as blunt and rude as it may have been, is not enough to block a long-time editor for any amount of time. You should have warned him about making such comments first. Don't ever make such a block again.
While I'm commenting here, you realize that the links Democrat Party and Democratic Party link to two different articles? I see that you're changing every link to "Democrat Party" (which I support, for the most part), but you're having every article link to a different article. Please change the links so they link to the actual article about the party, even if you pipe it so the reader sees "Democrat Party." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)
- It was made clear to me when I was promoted to Assistant SysOp that this role is only for blocking blatant vandals, not working in good faith. While I haven't carefully studied the issue, he was disputing your changes in good faith. As officially stated, only full administrators are to resolve disputes. Just because you have the block button doesn't mean you should use it whenever someone disagrees. In your defense, edit warring is discouraged, but it takes two to edit war. If you are the one making a change, then it is reasonable to assume that the original version should take precedence until the dispute can be resolved. Please discuss it with an administrator rather than just blocking someone. Should he have kept reverting your changes? Probably not. Should you have kept forcing your change back in? Probably not. Please take it to an admin next time, rather than just abusing the block button. Thank you. --David B (TALK) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (EST)
- First of all, I apologize for being rude. It was a fit of pique, brought on by my feeling you weren't paying any attention to what I was saying. Still, it was inappropriate, and I don't believe you're vandalizing the site, or that you're attempting to be deceitful. So I hope that you can forgive me and we can come to the understanding that, even if we disagree on things, we're both working for what we believe to be the good, and we should treat each other with respect and charity. I hope we can agree on that much at least.
- That being said, I still strongly disagree with your position about this, and don't feel that it's ultimately good for the site, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with you that won't do anything but waste both our time. So maybe we could agree to make our cases before an administrator or someone, for the sake of harmony, and get a decision on this. Let me know what you think.--Whizkid (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)
Liberal Denial revert?
Why did you do this? We know that the ultimate goal of liberals is to do more than just censor Christianity in America. A site made for American conservatives should be about politics as much as it is about religion.
Please backup your recent edits
Please try to either save a copy of your recent edits, or just refrain from editing for the next 24 hours or so. Conservapedia is changing web servers, and there is a risk that pages might be exported before you make the change, meaning your change will be lost. Thanks for understanding! --David B (TALK) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
I saw you reverting my edits to the article on Islam. There is a belief system to Islam, but it's more about worshiping an ideology than any God or gods. Even so, the source cited says Islam "…is an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems as well as a belief system. It is neither one thing nor the other – Islam is unique."
Did you see that there was a talk page discussion on the marijuana article about the content in question? I recommend that you explain your reverting there and reach an agreement with the other editors, and I strongly recommend that you leave an edit summary when you revert. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
- Same, an edit summary would really be helpful there to clarify your intent. Did you read the Talk page discussion about how those portions of the lede undermine our argument? Please see Talk:Marijuana#Objections_to_presentation_of_lead. DavidLReyes (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
Discussing Christian Denominations on This Site
I am someone who believes very staunchly in the five solas. I think that Ephesians 2:8-9 indicates the validity of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, John 14:6 for Solo Christo, and Psalm 115 for Sola Deo Gloria. I am not here to debate religious issues with you, but as you are a high-ranking admin on this site and Catholic, I have to ask you, what would you do if you saw edits to certain articles promoting a Protestant point of view? Shobson20 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (EST)
Hi, I was banned for making edits that I thought were accurate on the Political Spectrum page under my account Classical Liberal. I didn't know how to contact you, so I created this page instead so I could. I'm really sorry. I'm a new user who just registered within the same hour of getting banned, I am a conservative, but I prefer that we take our title of being the liberals back, I'm not a troll, and I'm a student who's interested in politics and all I'm trying to do is inform people about modern conservatives so women and minorities aren't deceived anymore and will come back home to the Republican Party. I don't see how my edits were lies or revisionist history. I was just trying to inform people who wrongly accuse us of what the Democrats did like the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation because they always claim whenever you tell them that the Democrats were responsible for all of it that that's when the Democrats were the conservative party because they think that the parties switched and since I learned that the word liberal was redefined in the 1930s, I also thought the word conservative was redefined as well and that classical conservatism meant modern liberalism now just like how classical liberalism means modern conservatism now. I thought that I should've informed people that the conservatives of the past who the modern liberals pin the actions of on us modern conservatives were the modern liberals because the word liberal was hijacked from us and redefined and they like to accredit modern liberals for the things we classical liberals and modern conservatives actually did before the word liberalism was redefined. They'll argue with us conservatives and tell us that Lincoln would be a Democrat since he was a liberal because they don't realize that he was a liberal when the definitions of liberal and conservative were reversed. They believe the parties were reversed instead. I thought that since we were called the liberals in the past before they hijacked and redefined the term for themselves, they were called the conservatives because they're trying to pin the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation on modern conservatives and blame us for it and insist that since Democrats are now called the liberals and Republicans are called the conservatives, that the parties switched rather than the definitions of liberal and conservative. I thought this was the correct explanation since liberals of today whenever you point out the Democrats' history say "that's when the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives and Lincoln would be a Democrat today since the liberal party is the Democratic Party now." They're unaware that when we were the liberal party, that the word liberal did not mean what it does now. I was just trying to clear the confusion that the Democrats created up when they redefined the word liberal and hijacked it from us. I thought that since classical liberalism means what modern conservatism does, classical conservatism must've meant what modern liberalism does now because I thought that since we were called the liberals before the New Deal, that the Democrats must've been called the conservatives then because what else would that have made them if we were called the liberals before the New Deal and conservatives after? If we were called liberals prior to the New Deal, what were they called? Conservatives wanting to keep blacks enslaved and minorities and women oppressed who had a bad reputation and stole our term? And I thought that them stealing the term liberal from us and us having to call ourselves the conservatives instead of liberals which we used to be called was part of their plan to push the party switch myth 30 years later because we have the title of conservative and they have the title of liberal that they stole from us and I thought the Democrats did this to make it look like the parties switched instead of the titles and to make it look like they were the good guys since they're now called "liberals" instead and no longer us which we used to be called until they hijacked the term from us. I thought this was the best way to debunk the claim that modern conservatives of the Republican Party who used to be called liberals prior to the definition switch had anything to do with what the Democrats did in the past. I thought that if being a conservative meant what being a liberal meant before the word was redefined, that being a liberal meant what being a conservative meant because I thought that since the term liberal belonged to us at one time, the term conservative must've belonged to them and that if classical liberalism means modern conservatism, classical conservatism must mean modern liberalism. You see where I'm getting at? I thought that if the word liberal belonged to us at one time, the word conservative belonged to them if we were called the liberals because what is the opposite of liberal? Conservative. And I thought that since the word liberal had a different definition, the word conservative had a different definition too. So I'm sorry if I in your words inserted historical revisionism and lies. That was not my intent. My intent was to clear up confusion, not create it. I want people to stop accrediting modern liberals for what we did and stop claiming that we used to be the Democrats and that the Republicans used to be what Democrats are now which is not true. I'm new to all this and I'm a beginner. I'll probably need some help with editing. I'm still learning my history. History and philosophy and studying the Bible are my favorite things. I'm obsessed with politics. I'm really good at explaining things and I was just trying to help. You could've just let me know where you thought I was wrong instead of slapping a 2-year ban on me. If unbanned, from now on, I will verify with you the things I want to add to pages before I add them so this won't happen again. Please give me another chance. I'm only a guy in his late teens whose been into politics for 7 years now. I share your information with everyone I can and I've convinced many family members to become Republicans while even being disowned by several others which you could just imagine how that makes someone feel. Especially someone my age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modern Conservative (talk)
- I have unblocked the "Classical Liberal" account. I strongly recommend you first go to the article talk pages before making changes like this before unilaterally making them. Then, we can discuss those changes, which will be helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Sissy punk site
Per Jpatt and the late TK, I would try to avoid mentioning that vandal site at all, fair enough? DMorris (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (EDT)
The atheist page has straw man arguments and generalisations against atheism like that atheism is a worldview. You cannot just delete and ban everybody that doesn't agree with you. The evolution page is full of inconsistencies too.
Hey, since you seem to be the most active person on the Greatest Conservative TV Shows page I figured you might want to add Preacher to the page. It is about a disgraced preacher coming back to church and trying to find God.
Please help defend Catholicism from the baiters!
Hi Northwest, if you have the time, can you please look out for the Catholic-baiters on this site (RobSmith, Conservative, VargasMilan, and Shobson20) and rebuke them if need be? They have harshly attacked NishantXavier on his talk page, and it's evident that they spread lies, smears, baiting rhetoric, and mischaracterizations to "prove" their points, which are often times fallacious. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 15:03, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
- Don't listen to him, he has as much of a victim complex as BLM supporters. Actually, the most mature thing you can do is not get involved in this argument like you have all along. Shobson20 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
- Wait, I have the victim mentality in the same manner of BLM idiots? Need I remind you, Shobson20, for the gazillionth time that you were the one whining immediately after NishantXavier was promoted and you weren't yet? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 16:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
The truth is that a Catholic vs. Protestant argument was getting out of hand, so User:Conservative suggested making that debate page to make the debate more structured and civil. Since then, both sides have been mostly talking there, but Liberaltears just can't let things go. Shobson20 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Great to see you around again!
Check this out
Murder for Ratings. I'm fairly certain I put the assault by Jacob Lebron Kelly at a Sanders rally in the February 2020 list of violence. I'm checking it now. RobSFree Kyle! 20:27, 13 October 2020 (EDT)
Here it is https://www.conservapedia.com/Left-wing_violence_in_the_Trump_era_(2020)#cite_note-49 and footnote 50
A note about that troll
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the troll whose socks you were quick to block was probably trying to make a fool out of you and CP in general. Since the imbecile thought that you would immediately block him upon sight, he trolls you with usernames like this to prove he's correct in a sense and make us look paranoid. —
LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 22:50, 31 December 2020 (EST)
Please help formulate the Mission Statement
- Just doing what needs to be done. Northwest (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)
- Hi Northwest. I would like to get your input on a debate page I just created Debate:Should the United States attack Pakistan?. Thanks.Bytemsbu (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2021 (EST)
- You have no real interest in "civil" discussion, only to be disruptive, to act in an uncivil manner and to hide comments I make specifically calling you out for your behavior here in the past four days because you don't like what I have to say. Karajou's even had to undo what you're trying to do, but your reversals of his undos show that you're just not interested in doing the right thing and would rather seize power here and do exactly what Pokeria1 pointed out you're trying to do - take Conservapedia in a more leftward direction, which is not what this site is about. Northwest (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (EST)
Thanks for the tremendous blocking last night on the avalanche of vandal accounts. Today I've written and installed a program to minimize that from occurring again. Really appreciate your blocks!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (EST)
Later in this week, I will be attempting to mediate the dispute involving RobS as RobS creates a lot of content.
In the meantime and in the future, please do not provoke RobS. I cannot stress this enough.
Re: your editing warring with RobS about Obama's birthplace
Northwest, you wrote about Obama: "because of him not being a natural-born citizen".
At Conservapedia, you cannot definitively state that Obama was not a natural born citizen because there is no definitive/absolute/direct proof to that effect. The best you can do is point out that certain sources/people suspect that Obama was not a natural born citizen for X, Y, Z, etc. reasons. If you are definitively insisting that Obama was not a natural born citizen in articles, please stop. In many cases, historical claims are probabilistic. This is one of those cases.Conservative (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)
Why are you and rob fighting
RobS' talk page. It's his castle
Please stop endeavoring to retain your postings on RobS' user talk page.
As per Mr. Schlafly, "We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like government or public property, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users." Source: Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia.Conservative (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2021 (EST)
- Also, "Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages." Source: Conservapedia:Guidelines.Conservative (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (EST)
There’s no RationalWiki article yet.
- Basically denying the site traffic. Probably for the best. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (EST)
Don't take content disputes to user talk pages. It unnecessarily inflames matters. Keep things on the article talk pages
You immediately took a content dispute to a user's personal talk page.
You shouldn't immediately take content disputes to a user's talk page. It unnecessarily inflames matters. Keep things on the article talk pages and endeavor to have a cordial, constructive dialogue with the person to resolve matters. Conservative (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
Re: Don't take content disputes to user talk pages
Unfortunately, that was easier said than done when RobS chose not to be cordial or constructive (as per his history) with me or other editors during the kerfuffle back in January that led to his being desysopped and stripped of his admin powers. Northwest (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
- For all parties involved, I suggest practicing forgiveness and trying to start things over with a new slate.
- I have been talking to Andy about this matter and he wants greater civility and constructive dialogue by all parties involved.
- This coming weekend, I will be talking to Andy about upgrading Conservapedia's civility guidelines.
- In addition, I will be talking to Andy about Conservapedia articles/content having an more encyclopedic tone. Why? Because Andy raised this issue with me and would like to see Conservapedia have a more encyclopedic tone in all cases where it is important to do so (I will explain this matter). Encyclopedia articles should first and foremost be designed to inform and shouldn't go out of their way to troll. For example, as far as a an article dispute you had with RobS, you insisted that the word "transgender" be struck out and "gender confusion" be used instead because you said that liberals don't like the phrase "gender confusion". But the purpose of articles is not to tick off liberals, but to inform the public. From what I understand, the topic had to do with transgenderism so when you insisted that "gender confusion" be used it unnecessarily clouded the meaning of the article as that is a broader term. Even when I write on provocative topics like Gay bowel syndrome, Homosexuality and parasites, Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA and Atheism and bestiality, I make every effort to keep the articles encyclopedic in tone. I am also not a fan of RobS using "Biden junta" for article titles or article content. The term "Biden junta" is fine for essays, but not articles in my estimation. Andy wants main page right content to have a more encyclopedic tone too. I plan on talking to RobS about this matter this coming weekend and to talk to Andy about this matter too. In short, if you want content to have a very provocative tone, that is fine, but do it in essays.Conservative (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
- I upgraded the Conservapedia guidelines as far as the civility portion. I will be talking to Andy this week to get it approved.
- This is my addition: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unneccesary content disputes by sourcing your article content."Conservative (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
- Well, what I actually stated in my edit summaries was that since this is a conservative wiki, use of liberal-preferred terms should be avoided except in certain contexts (such as in quotes made by public figures, or names of liberal organizations). If liberals don't like their preferred terms not being used, that's their issue, but giving in on that subject is essentially a matter of "give them an inch..." (or to be more specific, give liberals an inch and they'll eventually demand the distance between Earth and Pluto, as they always do). Northwest (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
- Really? You're using Google searches for viability? Newsflash, Google manipulates search results. We even have an entire article on the subject on here. Even if we kowtow to Liberal redefining of things, Google STILL will end up manipulating search results to block us out. Better be a pure conservative site than sacrifice even a small amount of conservativism under the belief it would give us more traffic. If anything, you should go by DuckDuckGo or even Bing. Pokeria1 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
- You are correct. Here's my revised statement: "The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in
- You are correct. Here's my revised statement: "The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in
- This is the update I created: "For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts in content disputes and back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content."Conservative (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
Re: latest edit war with RobS
As far as your latest edit war with RobS, If you are going to source material, please do better than Quora or sites like it such as Yahoo Answers. Anyone can put material on sites like that. The fourth footnote for the Conservapedia Commandments indicates, "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed."
Quora is not an authoritative work.
Friendly invite to a new Conservapedia project
Hello Northwest! I hope you are having a good day. I wanted to invite you to Conservapedia:Project Current Events since it is a new project that I recently started. The goal of the project is to improve Conservapedia within current events, Hopefully you will consider joining. --Elijahandskip (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2021 (EDT)
RobS and Northwest content disputes involving historical matters
I see a lot of disputes between RobS and NorthWest involving historical disputes. Below I give some great rules of weighing historical evidence.
"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."
Fischer's 7 habits of sound historiography
Fischer's 7 rules for historians taken from Josh McDowell's book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.
(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.
(3) "An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself."
(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, Fischer is saying that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.
(6) "An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants."
(7) "All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic."
Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 674, 1999, Mark MCGarry, Texas Type and Book Works, Dallas, TX, ISBN 0-7852-4219-8)
Fischer's 6 principles of question framing for historical investigations
re: your edit to the European migrant crisis article
Please look at this edit of yours: https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=European_migrant_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1309224 which you posted in 2017.
1990sguy and RobS spent countless hours on the article.
I want to focus on one aspect of your edit to that article. In 2017, after Barack Obama served 8 years as the president of the USA, your edit indicated the following and I will quote it : "When Barack Hussein Obama became "president"". Norwest, when you posted "president", with no explanation, its obvious your intent was to merely "stick it to the libs" and not to educate the public. The purpose of an encylopedia is to inform the public and not merely to upset people who hold to a certain political ideology.
Now in an article devoted to specific topic of Barack Hussein Obama one can certainly briefly go over the pro/con arguments of Obama's actual birthplace (like the various arguments of computer experts on Obama's online long form birth certificate giving the pro-con arguments of the various computer experts opinions on its authenticity). In addition, in that main Obama arrticle one can have a link to a longer article specifically geared to the issue of Obama's birthplace controversy.
But an article which merely refers to "President" Obama for example is potentially confusing to the reader as he/she may not know what it means. For example, a young person in India who reads "President" Obama could easily be confused on why the quotation marks are there.
One the reasons why I shared Fischer's rules above is to point out that historical investigations/conclusions are often probabilistic. A historian looking into the birthplace of Obama would carefully weigh all the evidence and after doing so would not make dogmatic statements like "Obama was definitely not born in the USA" because he would actually have no absolute certainty. For example, I know that one Republican computer expert said the online rendition of Barack Obama's birth certification document was a bona fide copy of Obama's birth certificate. Some computer experts on the other hand say the online, long form birth certificate was a fraud.
Re: Trump Reverts
Thanks for leaving a message. You bring up a very good point about whether Joe Biden should even legally be in power, because of how greatly distrusted last year's election was. But it also raises the question of, if Joe Biden is not the legal president, then who is? It can't be Donald Trump, because he failed to win Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona (which had no voting law changes and the suburbs and working-class voters there were almost certainly going to hand the state to Joe Biden), so massive voter fraud in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which was declined by a leftist agenda of the courts in those locations, would not have been able to change the election. Plus, courts with a political agenda are nothing new either. Bush v. Gore, for example, only favored Bush because of a rightist agenda of the court. So even if there was massive voter fraud in the 2020 election like we suspect, don't courts and local election officials serve the bottom line for presidential legitimacy? Not only do I find it very unlikely that Republican officials wish to promote a big-government leftist agenda, but the reason I say all this is because even if Joe Biden didn't receive as many votes as it seemed in 2020, he may still be a legal president. Even if it is the fault of the people who ran the election, the Biden administration may not be the one to blame. - TrumpLover84(talk)
While on vandal patrol, you missed the most obvious. This edit claims Stacey Abrams is a bizarre conspiracy theorist cause she accused brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger of election rigging with voting machines before Sidney Powell or Donald Trump did.
Do I use infobox officeholder or dictator bio for this person https://conservapedia.com/Albert_René as he was accused of using torture against people. --Yeschayi ~ Talk! (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (EDT)
- Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions.
- If you ask me, the only one actually coming across as a bully is you, Rob. And quite frankly, I have to agree with Northwest, your actions are coming across as unjust, and more likely to aid the liberal agenda as it is. We formed Conservapedia specifically to get AWAY from the liberal bias that is Wikipedia. We cannot allow ourselves to become Wikipedia-lite. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (EDT)
- And how was my edit summary regarding the Bruce Jenner article a "snide comment" (which you yourself are guilty of leaving in other past edits of yours), even though it was not - it simply stated the truth, which you then proceeded to hide (and in so doing, makes you look guilty of covering up that truth) by hiding that summary and by protecting the Bruce Jenner redirect to prevent a move back to what the article should be - which, in your doing, makes it look like you're trying to coddle, enable and encourage a mental disorder instead of treating it as what it is.
Earlier I had View source message and couldn't edit?
- Got it, that's what I thought. Good idea for you guys to do that. By the way, have I been doing good thus far? I've noticed that you've been adding some articles as well, such as episodes on Popeye the Sailor. Has Conservapedia expanded its scope in recent times (especially because liberalism is slowly corrupting more and more things). Patriotic Gamer (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
- Well, let's run down the highlights:
- I originally told Astaka that Wikipedia was not a credible source when he used a Wikipedia article as his source when he was arguing about the history of writing;
- Astaka then proceeded (as Andy later explained when he replied) to argue in circles and tried to have it both ways in his argument (see the text) after I pointed out to him that two sources that he supplied, which he hoped to use to bolster Wikipedia's claims, actually discredited them;
- I warned him about his behavior after he started getting abusive because he didn't like my pointing out that he discredited his own arguments with his own sources;
- After his arguments got shot down at Andy's talk page, I offered Astaka an easy out to cut his losses and walk away from the argument, but he refused to take it and insisted on continuing to argue;
- At the Ivermectin talk page, Astaka denied the effectiveness of that medication using a biased website as his "source", then he started arguing after I countered his claim by posting how Joe Rogan cured his case of the CCP flu using Ivermectin;
- After I shot down all of his arguments there (finishing by pointing out how his source would have reason to lie about Ivermectin), he descended to trolling - and that's what earned him the block. Northwest (talk) 06:03, September 3, 2021 (EDT)