Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Northwest

2021-10-18T02:38:12Z

Northwestramshismom:

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User Worldconservative}} {{User Canadian}} {{User CanadianBorn}} {{User sysopother}} {{User tolerancecompromisetruth}} {{User windows}} {{User Trump}} {{User Not Democrat}} {{User Not Obama}} {{User Not Hillary}} {{User Not Biden}} {{User Not McCain}} {{User Not Bloomberg}} {{User Not the Squad}} {{User progun}} {{User parties didn't switch}} {{User Catholic}} {{User Life begins|conception}} {{User Brave}} {{User male}} {{User marriage}} {{User prolife}} {{User noracists}} {{User NoEvo}} {{User anti-pot}} {{User Antihitler}} {{User Israel}}
{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#ff0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:Liberal_Brain.jpg|60px]] |info=<center>This user knows that [[Liberalism]] is a mental disorder</center>}} {{User anti-fake news}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

<center> <div style="align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;">
'''<big>When I see Mitch McConnell, my half inch cock throbs</big>'''</div> </center>

==Donald Trump==
*Knows more about American history than most liberal politicians (who choose to buy into revisionist lies pushed by a Communist-infiltrated education system), particularly [[Barack Obama]] ([[The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor|who thought a bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor]] and [[Obamaisms|that the Selma march took place before his birth in 1961]]).
*Knows and understands more about American government than most liberals (politician or civilian).
*Knows more about compassion than most liberals think he does (i.e. sending aid to Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria, and to areas of Texas and Louisiana hit by Hurricane Harvey).
*Knows more about empathy than most liberals think he does (see above).
*Knows more about forgiveness than most liberals think he does.
*Knows more about contrition than most liberals care to admit.
*Knows more about redemption than most liberals think he does (the redemption of America [[Barack Obama|after eight years under an illegal occupier of the White House]]).
*Knows more about Christianity (and its importance to America and the world) than most liberals think he does.
*Knows more about the Bible (and its importance in shaping American society and society as a whole) than most liberals think he does.
*Knows more about self-control than any liberal cares to admit ([[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Results|as opposed to the likes of Hillary Clinton]] [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Anti-Trump_violence_and_hate_crimes|and the Democrat Party and many of its supporters]]).
*Knows more about ethics than any liberal cares to admit (and knows more about ethics [[Moral decline|than any liberal or Democrat, period]]).
*Knows and understands far more about patriotism than any liberal (including the likes of Hillary, Obama and [[Colin Kaepernick]] and his fellow NFL kneelers).
*Knows more about service than any liberal cares to admit ([[Donald Trump achievements|his service to America as its current President]]).
*Knows more about honesty than any liberal cares to admit (and [[Liberal lies|more than most liberals, period]]).
*Has a better understanding about science [[Climategate|than the frauds, hucksters and quacks who push "global warming/climate change" alarmism]] [[Greta Thunberg|and who use children as their pawns, props and mouthpieces to push their agendas]].
*Has a better understanding of healthy eating than most liberals care to admit (and [[Michelle_Obama#Healthy_Eating_Failure|more so than Michelle Obama]]).
*Has a better understanding of what a healthy lifestyle is than most liberals care to admit (see above).
*Has a better understanding of exercise than most liberals care to admit.
*Knows far more about American geography than Obama ([[Fifty-seven states|who thinks America has 57 states]]).
*Knows more about spelling than many of those in today's education system.
*Has far more respect for women than liberals do ([[Left-wing war on women|or care to admit]]).
*Knows more about the sanctity of marriage than most liberals do ([[Hollywood values|or care to admit]]).
*Is more patriotic than any of the [[clique]] of [[The Squad|far-Left, anti-American, anti-Semitic and racist Democrat congresswomen]] (and their supporters) he saw fit to criticize for [[anti-Americanism|their smearing of America and their lack of patriotism]].

==Those who Abuse their Power==
A poem by Francis Duggan, targeting those who abuse their power for selfish purposes:

''Those who abuse their power over others in their lust for renown 
''Are those who are letting humanity down 
''They come in all shades of colors black, white and brown 
''And are to be found in every village and city and town 
''For abusing their power they cannot have an excuse 
''Since power does not give them the right others to abuse 
''Any form of abuse does constitute a crime 
''Though not all abusers do serve prison time 
''Those with power over others who abuse their power are in minority 
''And thankfully most people who do not abuse their power are of the majority 
''But a few rotten apples in a bag does rot others as the wise one does say 
''And there are far too many abusive people in the Human World of today 
''Of more compassionate people as leaders in the World we are in need 
''And the person who leads by good example is a good person indeed.''<ref>[https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/those-who-abuse-their-power/ Those Who Abuse Their Power]</ref>

==Regarding children and the Internet==
It's never a good idea for children to use the Internet without the supervision of a parent or other responsible adult, because when left to their own devices online, children with nothing better to do (especially when they have time off from school) and who haven't been taught better by some parents will invariably get into mischief online (as the vandalism of, and occasional attempts to deny access to, Conservapedia by some of those children demonstrates - in particular, one young troll who frequently comes to Conservapedia with numerous socks, all carrying vulgar variations of the screen names of the editors and admins he attacks with vulgarity, foul language and copypasted death threats as well as vandalizing other pages, but who I simply call the Juvenile Delinquent because of his junior high school-level immaturity, extreme childishness, use of vulgarity/foul language and lack of intelligence and originality - and every time he comes back with yet another sock to attack editors and admins and vandalize articles and user/user talk pages with more vulgar immaturity [on account of his refusal to take the hint that he's not wanted on this site and that he will ''never'' make it in the real world with that kind of attitude], all he does is keep right on proving '''''every single point''''' I make about him, [[Dunning-Kruger effect|which he is too clueless to get]]).

Here's an example of what can happen when some such children take things one step further and decide to act the same way toward people face-to-face as they do online - especially if they go up against the wrong person with their childish behavior:

[https://tribunist.com/news/kid-caught-keying-cars-attacks-the-man-who-stopped-him-it-doesnt-end-well/ Kid Caught Keying Cars Attacks The Man Who Stopped Him. It Doesn’t End Well] ('''Warning:''' Contains foul language; replaces two previous videos on YouTube, including conservative site Black & Blonde Media's original video, both removed by YouTube under a false claim of "violating" its community guidelines because it presented the full video of a mouthy kid acting aggressively and disrespectfully toward an adult who then retaliated against the kid, as opposed to other versions of the video at YouTube and on social media, selectively edited and presented out of context to make the mouthy kid look like the "victim" and the adult who retaliated look like a "bully")

==Subpages to this page==
*[[User:Northwest/Political memes|Political memes]]

==Authored essays==
*[[Essay:A view on the CCP flu pandemic|A view on the CCP flu pandemic]]
*[[Essay:Celebrity casualties of the CCP flu pandemic|Celebrity casualties of the CCP flu pandemic]]
*[[Essay:What YouTube's updated censorship rules say vs. what they really mean|What YouTube's updated censorship rules say vs. what they really mean]]

==Things to work on at Conservapedia==
===Articles to create===
*[[All Elite Wrestling]]
*[[Jim Crockett Promotions]]
*[[Kateri Tekakwitha]]
*[[Medical apartheid]]
*[[Medical tyranny]]
*[[Mental gymnastics]]
*[[Othering]]
*[[Ring of Honor]]
*[[Scamdemic]]
*[[Self-righteousness]]
*[[Sinclair Broadcast Group]]
*[[World Championship Wrestling]]

===Articles to improve===
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows]]
*[[Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows]]
*[[WWE Championship]] (offshoot of the [[World Wrestling Entertainment]] article)

==References==
{{Reflist}}

User talk:Progressingamerica

2021-10-18T02:36:17Z

Northwestramshismom: /* Hey loser */ new section

{{welcome}}--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:05, 26 May 2014 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

I've enjoyed your edits, and your blog, and just added some new rights to your account. Please let me know if any additional rights, such as the ability to do early-morning editing, would be helpful.

The recent upgrade to the new WikiEditor makes references easier to add, by clicking the open-book button on the edit toolbar. If you have any questions, please let me know. Your approach in focusing on the [[Progressive Era]] is fascinating!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (EDT)
:Thanks Andy, I appreciate it. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 20:53, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

::Restoring your edits from the data outage is a challenge! It may take me a few days, but I've made progress tonight. The data is not lost.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:52, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

:::All of your substantive edits from the data outage have been restored, as best I can tell. I learned a lot from your work in restoring them!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:59, 30 August 2015 (EDT)

== Another account promotion ==

I just promoted your account to a higher level. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (EDT)

== When you block a user.... ==

it's a good idea to look over their recent edits (they were the cause of the block, right?) and see if any of them inflicted damage on mainspace material, and revert same. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (EDT)

== Olive branch petition ==

While I like what you have written, some aspects of the sentence style led me to do a Google search. Sections of the article appear to be copied verbatim from other sources, like the Encyclopedia Americana or some books by Charles Knight. (The Knight books appear to have been plagiarized later by Joseph Beale; it just never ends :-)

This doesn't bother me in the least; I think what you have written is fine. But you need to be aware that the administrators really want things to be in your own words.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:13, 10 September 2015 (EDT)

:I've been reading more of your stuff, and I like it. As a Massachusetts resident, I'm very interested in, and proud of, the role we played in starting this nation. In fact, I wrote up an extensive series on the topic for Ameriwiki.

:Joseph Warren: He's the guy who "pushed the button" that started the war. That is, he made the actual decision "The war starts tomorrow morning" and sent Dawes and Revere on their way.

:Samuel Prescott: Why did he happen to be riding around in Lexington at 1:00 AM?

:Paul Revere's boat: Where did the flannel strips that muffled the oars come from?

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:33, 10 September 2015 (EDT)

::I mixed many sources together with my own words, all of the sources in the public domain. That's primarily what I read. Can't trust modern history books. Besides, many *pedia articles start out from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, which is also outside of copyright. If you would like me to revert something, let me know.(or take the leap :-) [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:43, 10 September 2015 (EDT)

== Excellent block and reverts ==

Superb block and reversion of the edits earlier today!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:28, 28 September 2015 (EDT)

== Stealth leftists ==

There appears to be at least one or possibly two leftists pretending to be conservatives on pages I've edited. I'm not sure if they are George Soros hirlings working for Media Matters or Center for American Progress (CAP) or whatever but fake conservatives need to go otherwise they'll do a great deal of damage to the project.[[User:Joshmowe|Joshmowe]] ([[User talk:Joshmowe|talk]]) 01:20, 5 October 2015 (EDT)
: Its not readily apparent which user/which edit you are referring to. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 15:37, 5 October 2015 (EDT)

== Uploading historical photos ==

Your account has been upgraded so that you can upload historical photos. Any (unaltered) photo before 1923 is in the [[public domain]] and can be copied freely from other sites, preferably with attribution. Any photo after 1923 needs confirmation that it may be copied, with attribution. Try to avoid any images that are larger than 500k in size, or please shrink their data file size first. Congratulations on your additional rights!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:27, 17 October 2015 (EDT)
: Thanks, I uploaded one as a test.

::Perfect! Well done. Please upload more images like that, for placement in entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (EDT)

== Excellent block ==

Superb block and reversions this morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (EST)

== Problem ==

Jpatt just blocked a vandal. And you did just now. What could we do about these vandals who create accounts and only harm Conservapedia?[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (EST)

:It might be the same person considering that the troll accounts were occurring back to back. I'm not sure there's much we can do but wait for someone to create a new account and see how they edit, as a show of good faith. I don't believe the intent is for Conservapedia to become a walled garden that nobody can get into. That the create new login function has remained left open indicates that more editors are desired. I for one think that an increase in the amount of routine editors would be a good thing.

:As a forward thinking suggestion, I have thought to myself about the capability of the Wiki software that Andy is using to power the site, and if it can do post limits for new accounts. A one-edit-per-half-hour limit for brand new accounts would be extremely beneficial for automated troll busting. I do not know if the software can do it or not. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 23:16, 30 January 2016 (EST)

==Vandal==
A vandal on the loose. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Benkumar] I have told DavidB4, Jpatt, and Ashalfly.[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (EST)
::He, Rahulbrown, and Josephkocher might also be one and the same person. [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:41, 27 February 2016 (EST)
== Conservapedia's web traffic is up ==

Conservapedia is one of the top 100,000 websites in the world as far as web traffic according to the web traffic tracking company [[Alexa]],[http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com]

Thank you for all your contributions.

Conservapedia continues to receive millions of page views per month.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:59, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

== Account privileges ==

Your account privileges have been promoted to include "move" and "protect/unprotect" rights. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (EDT)

== Hello ==

Where should I post updates? Thanks.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 00:43, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
:Hello, you should edit them directly into the [[Brexit]] article. I noticed you have only made changes to User_talk: pages, and the Conservapedia rules are strict on that sort of thing. There isn't much reason to have your account banned for such a small thing. We need more editors around here. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (EDT)
::OK, as you can understand it is very late and any article I edit right now will be prone to errors, I will have a look at it later in the day.--[[User:SammiL|SammiL]] ([[User talk:SammiL|talk]]) 00:51, 24 June 2016 (EDT)

== Many thanks and re: articletalkheader ==

Thanks for all the great work you do. Andy told me how much he appreciates all your content.

Second, as far as use of the template "Articletalkheader" please endeavor to use it sparingly for a few reasons. One, I heard the major search engines don't like websites where a large percentage of the pages are templates. I guess some websites were adding a lot of "filler" via templates to make their website look more full as far as content. Also, Andy is not a fan of templates unless they are vitally needed. He thinks Wikipedia has an overuse of templates.

Again, keep up the good work. You add a lot of informative content. And your work is very much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:58, 30 June 2016 (EDT)

== Quick note and tip ==

Thanks for posting to the article [[One Lost Sheep]]. Given the reputation of Spurgeon in terms of his preaching, I am sure it ia a great sermon.

Second, I added some relevant category tags so people can find the article better.

Also, in order to help your article be seen by the major search engines, I tried to make it more unique. I added a few pictures. If you want to add an additional picture, that would probably help.

Again, thanks for creating your article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:06, 9 July 2016 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ATKrotting blocking] that vandal. Maybe I didn't act correctly by reverting every one of his edits while he was still unblocked, but for a while I felt I was the only one monitoring the site. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (EDT)

:Additional thanks for blocking the vandal. I've since given blocking privileges to the account of ‎1990'sguy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:33, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== Electoral College Map ==

Hello Progressingamerica, I hope you are having a Merry Christmas. I see that you originally uploaded [[:File:ElectoralCollege2016.jpg]], and I would like to ask if you would upload an updated version of the map to show the faithless electors. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:41, 25 December 2016 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Progressing:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? No US expertise is required. Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:Looks like its already complete. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 18:48, 17 February 2017 (EST)

== Image categorization ==

Hello, 
I've been trying to reduce our number of uncategorized images lately. The uncategorized images here mage a bit of a mess, and tend to waste space, since people are more likely to upload a very similar image to one already on the server because they didn't find the it. If you think of it when you upload images, would you mind making sure you add each image to <code><nowiki>Category:Image</nowiki></code> as mentioned on the upload page as well as a category relevant to that specific image, like <code><nowiki>Category:Buildings</nowiki></code>? 
If you can't think of a category other than Image to add it to, it would be great if you would [[Special:Categories|look one up]] or create one if none exists. Please don't upload a file in only the category Image, though, since that would make it harder for others to find and categorize it later.
Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (EST)

:Related to this, I've noticed that you have not added categories to many of the articles you've created. If you would add categories to them too, that would be great. Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (EST)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|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! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
: I appreciate you letting me know about this. I won't be using it, but I do think that some sort of "outlet" for Conservapedia discussion would raise our profile. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::Okay, well we'll see how it goes. The last one died, so I don't know how it will go this time. Hopefully it proves helpful. Anyway, thanks for letting me know! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:56, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Short note ==

Could you please write to me at userconservative135@gmail.com ? I want to convey to you two pieces of information and one piece of information is related to getting your content to have more readers. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:11, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
: Sent. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 21:10, 14 April 2017 (EDT)

== Federalist Papers ==

I created a category -- [[:Category:Federalist Papers]] -- that I added to the individual Federalist Paper articles you created. You can add it to the other articles you create. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:25, 24 June 2017 (EDT)

== Suggestions for your blog ==

Hi.

If you are up to some suggestions, I'd like to make some suggestions for your blog.

First, I think you may need to cover how Jefferson was actually tied to the progressive philosophy (like, for example, how he did a lot of big government stuff during his presidency, or how he supported and even revered Robespierre, the September Massacres, and the like). I gave you a few sources in a response regarding one of your Theodore Roosevelt posts, but I'll offer one more: http://distributistreview.com/review-liberty-the-god-that-failed-part-i/

Second, I think you may need to cover how the French Enlightenment was for progressivism as well, or at least what would become it, and even advocated for similar stuff to Gramsci's march through the institutions as well as Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion piece (as you can read from The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis by Timothy Dwight, as you can read here: http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/#LFe1HvZ0eTHxBBmT.99).

If we're going to do any condemnation of progressivism, we need to condemn those guys as well, since they essentially pushed for it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:23, 1 July 2017 (EDT)

== Template request ==

I lowered the protection on [[Template:US amendments]]. If you would like me to unlock it entirely then I can easily do so. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:13, 30 September 2017 (EDT)

== addition to National Review ==

Thanks for the amazing quotation you added to the National Review entry about how it thinks Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate leader in a generation. Unbelievable how lost that publication has become.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:02, 1 November 2017 (EDT)

== Islamic slave trade ==

For the record, the redirect [[Islamic slave trade]] redirects to [[Slavery#The Islamic Trans-Sahara Slave Trade]]. And I agree, this topic needs to be significantly expanded. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:16, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

==[[The Gulag Archipelago]]==
I gave it a start. But the work is so large and can branch out it in so many different directions, structuring it for a one page article can have its own problems. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 13:04, 19 September 2019 (EDT)

==Heads up==
Thank you for your contributions to the [[Steele dossier]]. However I'd like to point out that information really belongs in [[John_McCain_2008_Presidential_Campaign#Russia_connections]] and/or [[Oleg_Deripaska#John_McCain]]. So far as is known, Simpson contributed nothing to the Steele dossier, other than handling payments from Obama, Hillary and the DNC, to [[Perkins Coie]], to FusionGPS, to Steele, with Simpson as Steele's paymaster. As is, the edits appear to be the Obama [[IC]] cover story trying to connect Republicans to the ''Steele dossier''.

As things develop in coming weeks, and the IC continues these CYA disinformation stories, don't be surprised if ''some'' of it gets overwritten. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 23:06, 23 September 2019 (EDT)
== Metrics ==
Your suggestion about finding metrics is an excellent one, and I posted the top 20 most-visited entries of this afternoon on the [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thank you. Some of the entries you've been editing rank high also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 21:30, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
Here it is again, since it was just archived from the [[Talk:Main Page]]:
:Six years ago I wrote a computer program to enable me to take a snapshot of activity to see which entries were being visited most, without relying on intrusive [[Google]] software. In response to the above I just updated and ran it. Here are the top 20 entries visited this afternoon on Conservapedia:
:::#Main_Page
:::#Atheism
:::#Clinton_body_count
:::#Obamagate_timeline
:::#Donald_Trump
:::#Alger_Hiss
:::#Katie_Hill
:::#Bernie_Sanders
:::#Barack_Hussein_Obama
:::#Donald_Trump_achievements
:::#Eddie_Rispone
:::#United_States_presidential_election,_2020
:::#Homosexuality
:::#Russiagate_timeline_2017
:::#Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies
:::#Liberal
:::#George_Soros
:::#Muellergate_timeline_2019
:::#Democratic_Party
:::#Liberal_hypocrisy
--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:03, 26 October 2019 (EDT)
::Thanks Andy. Could you make that script widely available for routine use? [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

==Various ideas==
Have you thought about a Houston Stewart Chamberlain article? ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=%22Houston+Stewart+Chamberlain%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns120=1&ns121=1&ns122=1&ns123=1&ns124=1&ns125=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&profile=advanced See also)] or is it not high on your list of priorities? Alternatively, some other titles such aa ''Foundations of the Nineteenth Century'', ''Myth of the Twentieth Century'' or Alfred Rosenberg. I could contribute if necessary. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 15:18, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
:It would make a great series of articles and fill quite a big gap in the decades leading up to Nazism, but I am working on other pages at the moment. In particular the pages about the Founders need more content. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:44, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
::Houston Stewart Chamberlain would fill in [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain a large gap between several key pages.] I may begin it sometime soon. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 20:29, 28 October 2019 (EDT)
:::I'll help you build it here and there. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 22:01, 28 October 2019 (EDT)

== Progressivism article ref problem ==

Reference #22 in the [[Progressivism]] article, in the content [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Progressivism&curid=50708&diff=1600674&oldid=1598650 you added] earlier today, is empty. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:07, 1 December 2019 (EST)
:Thanks, corrected that. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 16:13, 1 December 2019 (EST)

== I am glad you liked my idea for a Conservapedia chat area at Discord ==

I am glad you liked my idea for a Conservapedia chat area.

I suggest getting together with [[User:DavidB4]] who is technically knowlegeable/adept.

Maybe he would be willing to help you set up a Conservapedia [https://discord.com/ Discord] channel.

Once it is set up, I can advertise it in appropriate areas at Conservapedia (front page, relevant articles on Conservapedia at Conservapedia.

DavidB4 set up a IRC chat channel, but I don't think IRC is as good as Discord (but I could be wrong about this matter).

I would learn Discord myself, but I am pressed for time at this time due to off wiki affairs.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:23, 16 June 2020 (EDT)
:Andy Schafly, might want [https://telegram.org/ Telegram] to be used instead for a chat channel because it sounds more mainstream than Discord. But I really don't know much about Discord and Telegram as far as their pros and cons.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:15, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal==
We would appreciate your input at [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:59, 1 February 2021 (EST)

== Special invite ==

Hi Progressingamerica, if you're interested in joining a Discord server I created for Conservapedia, [https://discord.gg/e953Rag3 here's] the invitation link. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Sunday, 21:10, July 10, 2021 (EDT)

== Hey loser ==

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Qaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

User talk:Northwest

2021-10-18T02:31:57Z

Northwestramshismom: Fix

{{welcome}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:37, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

== same sex marriage revert? ==

Greetings, and hope you are well. Just wanted to ask, why the revert of my same-sex marriage page edit?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)

==Vandal==
A vandal on the loose. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Benkumar] I have told four other editors. If you are able, please block him[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (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. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
:::It turns out that user was a sock of TAR, and he was blocked by an admin (but for a different reason). Thank you for your work on this site, Northwest. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:43, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars. ==

Hi.

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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk: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: [http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:31, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== re: your note to me ==

I respond to your email from me.

Second, I will write a note to AlanE.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:04, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

==Evolution==
A simple question: do you believe in it, Creationism, or otherwise?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

==Account promoted==
Your account has just been given a promotion to 24x7 editing and blocking privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:Congratulations! You do very good work on this wiki, which I appreciate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (EST)
::Congrats! Keep up the good work! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:::Congratulations. It is good working with you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:36, 7 March 2017 (EST)
==JohnZ==
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. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 05:10, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|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! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking of User:Misslizzynj ==

Please don't block new users due to the name policy unless they have usernames that are obviously offensive or silly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

== Trolls ==

Don't feed them. Block them and move on. I would have emailed this to you, but you don't seem to have email activated. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
:Just block trolls. Do not communicate with them.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:22, 27 October 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." --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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 [[Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|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. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|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.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk: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.

[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 16:44, 29 January 2018 (EST)

== 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! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

== Islam ==

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."

== Marijuana article ==

Did you see that there was a talk page discussion on the marijuana article about the content in question? I recommend that you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Marijuana&curid=7524&diff=1412346&oldid=1412214 your reverting] there and reach an agreement with the other editors, and I strongly recommend that you leave an edit summary when you revert. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (EST)

== My Ban ==

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. {{unsigned|Modern Conservative}}
: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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (EST)

== Sissy punk site ==

[[User_talk:DMorris/Archive_1#Sissy_punks|Per Jpatt and the late TK, I would try to avoid mentioning that vandal site at all, fair enough?]] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk: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.

== New show ==

Hey, since you seem to be the most active person on the [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_TV_Shows|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 [[User talk:NishantXavier|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! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk: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? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 16:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Deflection. You've done plenty of whining yourself and STILL doing it. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:33, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::You're the one who's posting on other people's talk pages trying to get them involved, not us. First you tried to get Karajou, now Northwest. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm really sorry this guy is trying to drag you into his fight. If you want to, you can contribute [[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?| this debate page]]. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:01, 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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

== Great to see you around again! ==

Great to see you back, Northwest! How are you doing? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 00:26, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

==Check this out==
[https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/murder-for-ratings/ 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free 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

== Juvenile Delinquent ==

What can we do, if the Juvenile Delinquent comes after us? He came after me again. --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (EST)

== 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 [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ALightningBlocks&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= this] to prove he's correct in a sense and make us look paranoid. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 22:50, 31 December 2020 (EST)

== Please help formulate the Mission Statement ==

I need input on [[Conservapedia:Mission Statement]]. Please contribute. I want Conservapedia to leave Wikipedia in its dust.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (EST)

==Chimpout==
Good catch on User:Chimpout. [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Chimpout] I never would have caught it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 03:25, 30 January 2021 (EST)
:Just doing what needs to be done. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 03:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)

== Debate ==

:Hi Northwest. I would like to get your input on a debate page I just created [[Debate:Should the United States attack Pakistan?]]. Thanks.[[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2021 (EST)

+
==Proposal==
We would appreciate your input at [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:59, 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. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (EST)
== Thanks ==
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!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (EST)

== re: RobS ==

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.

Also, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (EST)
:Who was this topic made by? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 04:31, 9 February 2021 (EST)

== 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.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)

== Why are you and rob fighting ==

Why. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 01:03, 20 February 2021 (EST)

== 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."[https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia] Source: [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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."[https://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines] Source: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (EST)

== There’s no RationalWiki article yet. ==

Why is that? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 07:42, 2 March 2021 (EST)
:Basically denying the site traffic. Probably for the best. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (EST)
::Multiple admins there are ruining what was already a bad site and made it even worse --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 08:23, 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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk: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|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.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:10, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::I upgraded the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|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."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

::::The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in Google searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 07:04, 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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk: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 <s>Google</s> searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text." I removed the offensive proper noun. That should be helpful now, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:17, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
Andy approved my addition to the civility portion of the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Conservapedia guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:32, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::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."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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|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.

Under the new civility rules update that Andy approved, it does state you have to properly source material.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:01, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:Elijahandskip|Elijahandskip]] ([[User talk: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.

=== Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography ===

*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

"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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

==== 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 ===

*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:11, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== 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.

If you stick the facts in articles and not needlessly inject opinions that claim to be facts, you will have more harmony with other editors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

==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. - [[User:TrumpLover84|TrumpLover84]]([[User talk:TrumpLover84|talk]])

==Vandal patrol==
While on vandal patrol, you missed the most obvious. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stacey_Abrams&curid=152713&diff=1741677&oldid=1717133 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.

== Question ==

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. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk!]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Guidelines==
[[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states:
*''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.''
You Userpage mainspace presently has an attack upon another CP editor placed by you. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Northwest&curid=123230&diff=1753219&oldid=1752798] Please remove the abusive content. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:58, 10 May 2021 (EDT)
: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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (EDT)

==John Wayne==
Why don't you go fix the [[John Wayne]] article and change it to [[Marion Wayne]]? [https://turtledove.fandom.com/wiki/John_Wayne] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:04, 21 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730163][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730429]), 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bruce_Jenner&action=history] 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.[https://fwipetitions.org/fwi/16-facts-on-gender-confusion/]

:And, oh yeah - [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility|civility]], remember? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:43, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

Don't worry. You don't have edit war with [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Northwest&diff=next&oldid=1758240 the guy harassing you.] I reverted to [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&curid=24281&action=history your version] and locked the page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:55, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

==Unjustified block==
The blockee here was not "lying". [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Rozovoevino] [https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/05/21/house-candidate-says-he-impregnated-14-year-old-when-he-was-18/] He should have been asked for a citation and more context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:55, 22 May 2021 (EDT)

== Earlier I had View source message and couldn't edit? ==

Does Conservapedia ever lock its editing at night to only trusted contributors? I couldn't edit earlier & the edit tab was displayed as "View source". [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 09:23, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
: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). [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 11:01, 26 May 2021 (EDT)

==Discussion==
Why does a 90 minute discussion warrant a 48 hour block? [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&action=history] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:28, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

:Well, let's run down the highlights:

:*I originally told Astaka that Wikipedia [[Wikipedia#Unreliability of Wikipedia|was not a credible source]][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794054&oldid=1794053] 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794150&oldid=1794137]) 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;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794060&oldid=1794059]
:*I warned him about his behavior[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1794095] after he started getting abusive[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794094&oldid=1794092] 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,[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794086&oldid=1794085][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794095&oldid=1794094] 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;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794064&oldid=1794061]
:*After I shot down all of his arguments there (finishing by pointing out how his source would have reason to lie about Ivermectin[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794089&oldid=1794087]), he descended to trolling[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794103&oldid=1794101] - and that's what earned him the block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:03, September 3, 2021 (EDT)
:: Okay, good. You issued a warning first. We are trying to foster a friendlier editing environment less dependent on arbitrary blocking. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 05:28, September 4, 2021 (EDT)
:::Northwest, I hope you take ivermectin. It won't cure your COVID, but it ''should'' kill the worms inhabiting the cavity where your brain is supposed to be. [[User:Northwestramshismom|Northwestramshismom]] ([[User talk:Northwestramshismom|talk]]) 22:31, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

== Are you also called Northwest on Wikipedia, or is that someone else? ==

[[User:ChenXiansheng|ChenXiansheng]] ([[User talk:ChenXiansheng|talk]]) 12:06, September 8, 2021 (EDT)

User talk:Northwest

2021-10-18T02:31:29Z

Northwestramshismom: /* Discussion */

{{welcome}}[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:37, 18 September 2012 (EDT)

== same sex marriage revert? ==

Greetings, and hope you are well. Just wanted to ask, why the revert of my same-sex marriage page edit?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)

==Vandal==
A vandal on the loose. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Benkumar] I have told four other editors. If you are able, please block him[[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 02:34, 27 February 2016 (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. --[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
:::It turns out that user was a sock of TAR, and he was blocked by an admin (but for a different reason). Thank you for your work on this site, Northwest. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:43, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars. ==

Hi.

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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk: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: [http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:31, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== re: your note to me ==

I respond to your email from me.

Second, I will write a note to AlanE.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:04, 13 April 2016 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

==Evolution==
A simple question: do you believe in it, Creationism, or otherwise?--[[User:Pious|Pious]] ([[User talk:Pious|talk]]) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

==Account promoted==
Your account has just been given a promotion to 24x7 editing and blocking privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:Congratulations! You do very good work on this wiki, which I appreciate. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (EST)
::Congrats! Keep up the good work! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (EST)
:::Congratulations. It is good working with you. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 03:36, 7 March 2017 (EST)
==JohnZ==
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. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 05:10, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|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! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking of User:Misslizzynj ==

Please don't block new users due to the name policy unless they have usernames that are obviously offensive or silly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:58, 11 May 2017 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)

== Trolls ==

Don't feed them. Block them and move on. I would have emailed this to you, but you don't seem to have email activated. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 16:04, 27 October 2017 (EDT)
:Just block trolls. Do not communicate with them.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:22, 27 October 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." --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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 [[Conservapedia:User_rights#Blocking_rights|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. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|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.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk: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.

[[User:MacTavish|MacTavish]] ([[User talk:MacTavish|talk]]) 16:44, 29 January 2018 (EST)

== 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! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (EDT)

== Islam ==

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."

== Marijuana article ==

Did you see that there was a talk page discussion on the marijuana article about the content in question? I recommend that you explain [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Marijuana&curid=7524&diff=1412346&oldid=1412214 your reverting] there and reach an agreement with the other editors, and I strongly recommend that you leave an edit summary when you revert. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (EST)

== My Ban ==

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. {{unsigned|Modern Conservative}}
: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. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (EST)

== Sissy punk site ==

[[User_talk:DMorris/Archive_1#Sissy_punks|Per Jpatt and the late TK, I would try to avoid mentioning that vandal site at all, fair enough?]] [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk: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.

== New show ==

Hey, since you seem to be the most active person on the [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_TV_Shows|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 [[User talk:NishantXavier|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! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk: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? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 16:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Deflection. You've done plenty of whining yourself and STILL doing it. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:33, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

:::You're the one who's posting on other people's talk pages trying to get them involved, not us. First you tried to get Karajou, now Northwest. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 18:18, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

I'm really sorry this guy is trying to drag you into his fight. If you want to, you can contribute [[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?| this debate page]]. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:01, 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. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

== Great to see you around again! ==

Great to see you back, Northwest! How are you doing? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 00:26, 9 October 2020 (EDT)

==Check this out==
[https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/murder-for-ratings/ 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free 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

== Juvenile Delinquent ==

What can we do, if the Juvenile Delinquent comes after us? He came after me again. --[[User:United States|United States]] ([[User talk:United States|talk]]) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (EST)

== 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 [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ALightningBlocks&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= this] to prove he's correct in a sense and make us look paranoid. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code>'''LT'''</code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!]]''''' Friday, 22:50, 31 December 2020 (EST)

== Please help formulate the Mission Statement ==

I need input on [[Conservapedia:Mission Statement]]. Please contribute. I want Conservapedia to leave Wikipedia in its dust.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 01:22, 21 January 2021 (EST)

==Chimpout==
Good catch on User:Chimpout. [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Chimpout] I never would have caught it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 03:25, 30 January 2021 (EST)
:Just doing what needs to be done. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 03:26, 30 January 2021 (EST)

== Debate ==

:Hi Northwest. I would like to get your input on a debate page I just created [[Debate:Should the United States attack Pakistan?]]. Thanks.[[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]]) 21:37, 1 February 2021 (EST)

+
==Proposal==
We would appreciate your input at [[Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Proposal]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:59, 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. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:12, 1 February 2021 (EST)
== Thanks ==
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!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (EST)

== re: RobS ==

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.

Also, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (EST)
:Who was this topic made by? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 04:31, 9 February 2021 (EST)

== 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.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:34, 10 February 2021 (EST)

== Why are you and rob fighting ==

Why. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 01:03, 20 February 2021 (EST)

== 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."[https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia] Source: [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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."[https://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines] Source: [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (EST)

== There’s no RationalWiki article yet. ==

Why is that? --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 07:42, 2 March 2021 (EST)
:Basically denying the site traffic. Probably for the best. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (EST)
::Multiple admins there are ruining what was already a bad site and made it even worse --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 08:23, 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. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk: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|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.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:10, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::I upgraded the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|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."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (EDT)

::::The issue has more to do with the selection of popular and trending keywords occurring in Google searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 07:04, 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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk: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 <s>Google</s> searches to generate traffic, rankings, and exposure. Any differences in meaning on an ideological plane can be spelled out in text." I removed the offensive proper noun. That should be helpful now, [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:17, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
Andy approved my addition to the civility portion of the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|Conservapedia guidelines]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:32, 29 March 2021 (EDT)
::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."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk: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|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.

Under the new civility rules update that Andy approved, it does state you have to properly source material.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:01, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== 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. --[[User:Elijahandskip|Elijahandskip]] ([[User talk: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.

=== Recommendations related to historical claims made by this article and information related to historiography ===

*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]

"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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

==== 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 ===

*[https://sites.google.com/site/historiography101fischer/ Fischer's 6 principles of question framing] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:11, 9 May 2019 (EDT)

I hope this helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:46, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

== 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.

If you stick the facts in articles and not needlessly inject opinions that claim to be facts, you will have more harmony with other editors.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:41, 31 March 2021 (EDT)

==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. - [[User:TrumpLover84|TrumpLover84]]([[User talk:TrumpLover84|talk]])

==Vandal patrol==
While on vandal patrol, you missed the most obvious. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stacey_Abrams&curid=152713&diff=1741677&oldid=1717133 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.

== Question ==

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. --[[User:Yeschayi|Yeschayi ~ Talk!]] ([[User talk:Yeschayi|talk]]) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Guidelines==
[[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states:
*''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.''
You Userpage mainspace presently has an attack upon another CP editor placed by you. [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Northwest&curid=123230&diff=1753219&oldid=1752798] Please remove the abusive content. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:58, 10 May 2021 (EDT)
: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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 23:22, 10 May 2021 (EDT)

==John Wayne==
Why don't you go fix the [[John Wayne]] article and change it to [[Marion Wayne]]? [https://turtledove.fandom.com/wiki/John_Wayne] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:04, 21 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730163][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1730429]), 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bruce_Jenner&action=history] 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.[https://fwipetitions.org/fwi/16-facts-on-gender-confusion/]

:And, oh yeah - [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility|civility]], remember? [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 23:43, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

Don't worry. You don't have edit war with [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Northwest&diff=next&oldid=1758240 the guy harassing you.] I reverted to [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&curid=24281&action=history your version] and locked the page. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:55, 21 May 2021 (EDT)

==Unjustified block==
The blockee here was not "lying". [https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Rozovoevino] [https://clarion.causeaction.com/2021/05/21/house-candidate-says-he-impregnated-14-year-old-when-he-was-18/] He should have been asked for a citation and more context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:55, 22 May 2021 (EDT)

== Earlier I had View source message and couldn't edit? ==

Does Conservapedia ever lock its editing at night to only trusted contributors? I couldn't edit earlier & the edit tab was displayed as "View source". [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 09:23, 26 May 2021 (EDT)
: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). [[User:Patriotic Gamer|Patriotic Gamer]] ([[User talk:Patriotic Gamer|talk]]) 11:01, 26 May 2021 (EDT)

==Discussion==
Why does a 90 minute discussion warrant a 48 hour block? [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&action=history] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 19:28, September 2, 2021 (EDT)

:Well, let's run down the highlights:

:*I originally told Astaka that Wikipedia [[Wikipedia#Unreliability of Wikipedia|was not a credible source]][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794054&oldid=1794053] 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[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794150&oldid=1794137]) 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;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794060&oldid=1794059]
:*I warned him about his behavior[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=1794095] after he started getting abusive[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794094&oldid=1794092] 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,[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794086&oldid=1794085][https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=1794095&oldid=1794094] 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;[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794064&oldid=1794061]
:*After I shot down all of his arguments there (finishing by pointing out how his source would have reason to lie about Ivermectin[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794089&oldid=1794087]), he descended to trolling[https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ivermectin&diff=1794103&oldid=1794101] - and that's what earned him the block. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 06:03, September 3, 2021 (EDT)
:: Okay, good. You issued a warning first. We are trying to foster a friendlier editing environment less dependent on arbitrary blocking. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 05:28, September 4, 2021 (EDT)
::I hope you take ivermectin. It won't cure your COVID, but it ''should'' kill the worms inhabiting the cavity where your brain is supposed to be. [[User:Northwestramshismom|Northwestramshismom]] ([[User talk:Northwestramshismom|talk]]) 22:31, October 17, 2021 (EDT)

== Are you also called Northwest on Wikipedia, or is that someone else? ==

[[User:ChenXiansheng|ChenXiansheng]] ([[User talk:ChenXiansheng|talk]]) 12:06, September 8, 2021 (EDT)