SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
I had planned not to reply, because you were on "sabbatical". And I was on a business trip. But you are back. And so am I.
=== From User: Conservative to SamHB: My additional responses to SamHB about more than one editor using the User: Conservative account ===
=== From User: Conservative to SamHB: My additional responses to SamHB about more than one editor using the User: Conservative account ===
The other admins at Conservapedia either agree with my decision to expand the editor base of the User: Conservative account or they tolerate it or they are ambivalent (I really haven't deeply queried them about this matter). After all is said and done, they see that Andy Schlafly is not making a big stink about it so they are ok with it.
The other admins at Conservapedia either agree with my decision to expand the editor base of the User: Conservative account or they tolerate it or they are ambivalent (I really haven't deeply queried them about this matter).
::::I don't believe you. I see no evidence that the other admins, or any other people, accept that you have "expanded the editor base" of your account. Just saying it again and again and again and again doesn't make it any more convincing. You have utterly failed to substantiate this claim, a claim you have been making for years. I would think you would be able to come up with some evidence by now. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
After all is said and done, they see that Andy Schlafly is not making a big stink about it so they are ok with it.
::::Perhaps the reason Andy isn't making a big stink about it is that it doesn't matter how many people you say you are. Perhaps he doesn't care who is behind your keyboard. Perhaps he sees this whole situation as amusing but irrelevant to anything he cares about. Perhaps he doesn't care whether you are being truthful. Perhaps the other admins have a similar view, and just don't care whether you are being truthful.
As far as Andy Schlafly goes, he knows there are more than one editor of the User: Conservative account and he tolerates it. He is not excited about it despite the fact that account could potentially remain active upon my demise. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:39, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
As far as Andy Schlafly goes, he knows there are more than one editor of the User: Conservative account and he tolerates it.
::::I don't believe you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
He is not excited about it despite the fact that account could potentially remain active upon my demise. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:39, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
:Here is an excerpt from an email I sent other admins on Jun 30, 2018, 9:02 AM: "Given that another editor of my User: Conservative account unblocked him, I think he was hoping would be unblocked again. That is not going to happen."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
:Here is an excerpt from an email I sent other admins on Jun 30, 2018, 9:02 AM: "Given that another editor of my User: Conservative account unblocked him, I think he was hoping would be unblocked again. That is not going to happen."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:50, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether to believe you. Saying things like "Given that another editor of my User: Conservative account ..." doesn't convince me of anything. You make such statements all the time, in public on this web site, so it doesn't surprise me that you would make them in private emails also. How about posting (or forwarding to sam4557@gmail.com) the full message, with headers intact so that I can closely examine its authenticity, showing that the recipient acknowledged that your account is actually used by multiple people. Just saying that you said this is no more convincing than saying it directly. Which you do again and again and again and again. I want acknowledgement of this from someone else. By having them post something to that effect on this web site, or send me email to that effect. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
::SamHB, did you notice that editor of the [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] used the term LGBTQ. Personally, I think the Q is rather redundant so I am not a fan of this term. How often was the term LGBTQ used in other articles created by the User: Conservative account? Of course, this is yet another sign there is more than one editor of the User: Conservative account.
::SamHB, did you notice that editor of the [[Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals]] used the term LGBTQ. Personally, I think the Q is rather redundant so I am not a fan of this term. How often was the term LGBTQ used in other articles created by the User: Conservative account? Of course, this is yet another sign there is more than one editor of the User: Conservative account.
::And then there are the stylistic issues of: the footnoting style differences; the quote box differences; the greater tendency to put footnotes in the middle of sentences; the multiple use of the word gay in the article which is a term I rarely use; the dependent clause "as such" used in the beginning of a sentence which I believe I have never done in any of my writings at Conservapedia and finally the multiple use of the word "régime" in the article/page (I may have used the term "regime" in my articles but I never spelled it "régime").
::And then there are the stylistic issues of: the footnoting style differences; the quote box differences; the greater tendency to put footnotes in the middle of sentences; the multiple use of the word gay in the article which is a term I rarely use; the dependent clause "as such" used in the beginning of a sentence which I believe I have never done in any of my writings at Conservapedia and finally the multiple use of the word "régime" in the article/page (I may have used the term "regime" in my articles but I never spelled it "régime").
::::We've been through this before. You write articles in which you deliberately use varying styles, and then you claim that that proves you are multiple people? Really? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
::SamHB, it's time to face that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
::SamHB, it's time to face that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
::::I don't believe you. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
:::Have you noticed that User: Karajou, who commonly uses check user, has never disputed the notion that more than one editor has used (or uses) the User: Conservative account?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:14, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
:::Have you noticed that User: Karajou, who commonly uses check user, has never disputed the notion that more than one editor has used (or uses) the User: Conservative account?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 06:14, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
::::I haven't actually noticed the connection between your multiple-personality fantasy and checkuser. There's a very simple explanation for the fact that none of the people with checkuser rights sees anything amiss. All your edits come from the same person, at the same IP address. Nothing for Karajou to notice or comment on. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (EDT)
== And accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: SamHB account ==
== And accept there is more than one editor who uses the User: SamHB account ==