Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Abuse"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Other links)
(remove old stuff which should be in archives)
Line 50: Line 50:
 
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
 
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
−
 
−
==Conflicts between users==
 
−
 
−
Use this section when it's more between 2 of us, than between some random newbie and the project itself:
 
−
 
−
#{{user|RobS}} - Has been attempting to troll me and the page on [[Anti-Semitism]], he's clearly replacing proven information with pure speculation, and then attempted to get me banned for putting backed information. [[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 21:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
#:This edit was reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=80641&oldid=80371] with a summary, "read the cite; don't see how it supports the claim". [[User:JamesLipton]]'s actions there & here may be considered trollish behavior.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::[[User:JamesLipton]] has made unsubstantiated and inflamitory remarks privately.  He has repeated comments made by [[User:Order]] which Order himself has admitted to being false accusations against myself. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=next&oldid=73799][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=next&oldid=72613]  I regard the actions of both editors as harassment.
 
−
:::[[User:JamesLipton]] is intent upon [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=50188][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=next&oldid=80371] inserting false and malicious information into the [[Anti-Semitism]] article to impugn "fundementalist christians" (his words) and Rev. Jerry Falwell.  The latter defamation did include an external link citation which was reviewed and failed to substantiate the malicious charge ascribed to Rev. Falwell by [[User:JamesLipton]].
 
−
:::[[User:JamesLipton]] was blocked for two hours for trolling, however after recieving a threatening e-mail from him, stronger action may be necessary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::The extent of my threat was that I would contact other administrators. Falwell was clearly quoted as stereotyping the Jews in the link I provided. [http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/right_jews.htm] If that doesn't prove my statement saying that Falwell has made open statements that can be taken as anti-semitism, then there's something terribly wrong with the standard of citations for this site.
 
−
::::It appears RobS only wants his opinion present, and has no qualms against putting words in my mouth or blocking me.
 
−
::::Also he has abused his admin powers, it is clearly stated on his talk page that he should never block for idealogical reasons, which he most obviously did. [[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*If all that is so, why is this user still here?  Don't be such a softie, Rob.  See where it gets you?  To my way of thinking, a user emailing or messaging a Sysop with threats, inflammatory remarks or slander should be blocked as if they posted them in the article. Same goes for engaging in "revert wars" with a Sysop.  Mr. Lipton, cherry picking quotes to "show" someone might be anti-semetic, that (to quote you) "...that Falwell has made open statements ''that can be taken'' as anti-semitic...." might be something to be included in The Sun, but hardly the stuff of an encyclopedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::It didn't start with this user; this user repeated the lies & distortions under two subheadings on this page that never should have been posted here either.  Now I've been stalked, harassed, bullyied, defamed, and intimidated.  I have nothing to hide nor nothing to to run from.  This abuse, however needs to be dealt with head on, right here and now.
 
−
 
−
::This user stated, "It appears that you, are actually anti-semitic yourself. Not only from your conservative biased edits and trolling of the antisemitism page, but your terrible unproved statements on the page of Hitler."
 
−
 
−
::I suspect this was [[User:Order]]'s intent when posting the garbage he posted here to begin with.
 
−
 
−
::The cite [[User:JamesLipton]] uses to slander Falwell with needs closer scrutiny itself which I haven't had a chance to look at. The author of the smear appears to be a private investigator for hire.
 
−
 
−
::The substance of the claim that Falwell is "anti-Semitic" is simply lacking in the text from the link. There are two references, the first appears to be joke Falwell was making which actually praises Jews and ridicules non-Jews; the second is under a subhead entitled "Missionary activity" and quotes a passage from Falwell's book, "The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior. Yet they are God's people, and in the world today Bible-believing Christians are the best friends the nation Israel has."
 
−
 
−
::If this is anti-Semitism I suspect the Jesus, the Aposptle Paul, and Mother Theresa must all be anti-Semites, too.
 
−
 
−
::This is simply another case were a controversial person use the word, "Jew" in print, and called an anti-Semite for doing so.  When I reverted, I was called an anti-Semite.  These must be dealt with now, and me banning either or both solves nothing.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:12, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:::"Now I've been stalked, harassed, bullyied, defamed, and intimidated." Are you serious? Unless you are talking of that "Order" guy, I have no idea what you are speaking of.
 
−
:::About the Hitler edit thing, that was my mistake, I had previously not examined the issue and merely skimmed it, however that has little to do with this. I think you are only attempting to falsify a link to that, so as to sweep me under the carpet. You are to quick to discredit the article in question, despite the fact that it contains direct links to statements in question. I could find several other sources that quotes Falwell as saying that the Anti-Christ will be a Jew. Do you see that as a joke?
 
−
:::The article quotes Falwell when he makes a stereotypical remark about Jews in general. Obviously the stereotyping of an entire race is racism. [[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::So, you called me anti-Semitic (1) before examing any evidence (2) based upon lies another user admitted were without foundation.  With an appolgy, I will be be happy to forget the whole matter.
 
−
 
−
::::As to Rev. Falwell, I've contacted him and am waiting to hear from him.
 
−
 
−
::::The article wrenches a joke out of context Rev. Falwell is making to an audience which criticizes real anti-Semites.  It was strectch for this author to spew this garbage, and I see no reason anyone should repeat such obvious lies and distortions.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::::I was crossing the line a bit with the calling you an anti-semite and not reading into another matter more closely before commenting on it, but i still maintain the opinion that the article should show both sides of the issue, perhapes weasel words would be more applicable in this situation. Also I still carry the opinion that Falwell only wants two things of my kind, that we convert to Christianity, or that we burn in hell. [[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::::When you are ready to appologize for an egregious breach of civility, I'd be happy to engage the discussion on the appropriate discussion page.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::::::I do not believe it to be "an egregious breach of civility", but I will apologize for accusing you of antisemitism. I do still believe that my previous edit was appropriate, but I will be more ambiguous and use a more direct source next time. [[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::::::Apology accepted and thank you.  I move we adjourn to [[Talk:Anti-Semitism]] now.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
__TOC__
 
−
 
−
==Old Alerts==
 
−
*Dunno about [[Breast Exam]], initial text by [[User:NewGuy2]], image added by [[User:EditGenius2]]. Sincere article about an important and nonsexual topic, or deliberate attempt to push at the borderlines? Image appears to have been copied from http://www.iparenting.com/resources/articles/cancerpregnancy.htm by the way. Image is not obscene in context but I would have thought it was hot stuff when I was thirteen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
*[[User:EditGenius2]] also uploaded [:Image:SelfExam.jpg] but no pages link to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
*Seems to be an edit war in progress over the same image at [[Self Breast Exam]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:52, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Could people at least reply on the talk page for the breast exam page for WHY they keep deleting the non offensive image?  If that's offensive, then this is going to end up being an amazingly tiny encyclopedia.  It doesn't show anything rude, as I said on the talk page, yet it's gone once again. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::This is going to be a very tiny encyclopedia.  That's sort of the point, unfortunately.  --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 22:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: Folks, I deleted that stuff about breast exams.  Go look in your Encyclopedia Britannica and see if you find voyeurism like that.  You won't, and it shouldn't be here either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:: Due respect, Andy, but you will... you will find anatomical pictures of breasts, etc.  But then again, in an EB, you'll also not find outright censorship of material on evolution.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::: The desire by so many (present company excluded) to teach about sex has really been an eye-opener for me.  There appear to be millions of people wanting to teach about sex!  Virtually none of them become doctors, or even go into health professions.  Virtually none want to become real teachers.  But it's amazing how many want to be teachers of sex-related topics!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::Woot!  Sign me up!--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 21:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Can't say I understood that. Sorry. But, first, breast exams are not sex. They're cancer prevention. Second, teaching about safe sex prevents unwanted pregnancy, prevents abortion.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::::LOL, "teaching about sex", "voyeurism", ahahaah.  Sorry but those are just the complete wrong terms to use.  First of all, a picture of a *covered* breast couldn't possibly relate to sex.  I'm sorry but that's just not how it works.  And how it is voyeurism I will never know, since that would theoretically be a pervert watching someone through a window without them knowing it, or something similar.  This is a diagram used to help prevent Breast Cancer.  They were definately fully aware of a photo being taken, are covering themselves, and aren't doing anything sexual.  But whatever, if you want to be afraid of a bare stomach being shown, inflict censorship, by all means. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 23:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
*Can somebody delete http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobS&redirect=no please? The page got moved away from its proper space, but the move can't be undone since the moving user also removed the redirect (thus giving the page an actual edit history). If somebody deleted the redirecting page, the move could be reverted --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
**Quick edit to add: I'm not sure if the user had the aim of vandalizing the page, but I figured that most admins check in here for maintenance tasks --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::Addressed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::Could I ask for another favor in that line? Delete the current copy-pasted Talk page (as of now, no new content has been added to it) content and do a real page move from [[Usertalk:RobS]] to [[User talk:RobS]]? That way, the edit history stays intact, and the old page simply turns into a redirect. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Czolgolz]] seems to be faking posts by copying [[User:Bill M]]'s posts and/or simply faking sigs. See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Church_of_the_SubGenius&diff=prev&oldid=75283] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=75323] for an example, but it's definitely not the only one (check Czolgolz's contribs). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
**Thanks, Ed! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Reporting obscenity ==
 
−
 
−
User "Hal jordan" posted obscenity here.  In addition to being blocked, his full IP address and other identifying information have been reported to [http://www.rrsecurity-abuse.com/contactus.html Road Runner] with the request that it take immediate action against him for posting obscenity to a website used by minors under the age of 16.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT) 
 
−
 
−
A Soft Layer Technologies system in Dallas was the source of a different obscenity by a user.  The user has been blocked and the owner of the server has been notified at support@SoftLayer.com .--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Removing users ==
 
−
*[[User:JamesLipton]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JamesLipton contribs]) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Darfur&diff=prev&oldid=50233][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anti-Semitism&diff=prev&oldid=50188]
 
−
*[[User:Smile]] ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Smile contribs]) looks like nonsense; [[Michael Moore]] in  Category:Mammels; [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michael_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=52386] numerous random people in [[:Category:Evolutionists]].  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:I've warned him. Please alert me if he does it again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::There's no evidence the dozen or so people he calls Evolutionists are Evolutionists; to me it looks like trolling.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Sorry - I meant to put Michael Moore as an Evolutionist, but I was too fast on the copy and paste. I was trying to add an evolutionist tag as appropriate, and I don't know a better way than to just browse random articles - so they are random, sort-of. [[User:Smile|Smile]] 00:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::Look, I'm willing to give you some leeway with this as you aren't doing the usual vandalism stuff. But back up those evolutionist tags ok? And cut out the mammal stuff.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::I think [[Skin Flute]] may have earned you a ban. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Flute&diff=prev&oldid=52337] And these could be speedied. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&diff=prev&oldid=52348][http://www.conservapedia.com/Bob_Saget]  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::::I gave him one week; there's a lot of nonsense there, but some stuff is bordereline.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Deus rex caelum]]--Is making parody/mocking edits/entries.
 
−
 
−
: I almost blocked him last night, but thought perhaps it best to give more of an opportunity to be constructive.  His edits have not been clear vandalism, though I agree at least one seems silly.  Maybe he'll get serious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Scalito1776]] - has made numerous vandalizing edits --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 01:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: REPLY: blocked for infinite duration, and his vandalism has been rolled back.  We also have his IP address and ISP.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Sisyphus]], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Microscope&direction=next&oldid=41608 Microscope], prank/parody article: "Microscopes are ''purportedly'' instruments that enable the user to view objects smaller than the eye is capable of visualizing... Microscopes are frequently used by scientists, such as those arguing in favor of human cloning, stem cell research, and evolution... little investigation has been done into the possibility that microscopes may cause the existence of the very microbes they purport to offer us a glimpse at. It is also possible that the scientific method may itself be at fault." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: REPLY: blocked for one week for his one edit, which was inappropriate.  Good decision here by another SYSOP (Geo).  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:56, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[User:Scriabin]] and [[User:Familyman]], for subtle vandalism in their creation of the original articles on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] (now a redirect). They highlight a problem that concerns me: both of these articles, as created, are poisonous mixes of valid information with misinformation that is subtle enough to escape notice by people who don't know the subject, while ludicrous enough to arouse the derision of those who do. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=33939 Johann Sebastian Bach] said that Bach composed "a C Minor Mass." If he did, it's obscure, whereas his '''B''' Minor Mass is celebrated; ''Mozart'' wrote a famous C Minor Mass. That could be a typo. Saying Bach composed ''The Diabelli Variations'' (which are by Beethoven) can't be. The original version of [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bach%2C_johann_sebastian&oldid=40072 Bach, johann sebastian] goes over the top when it says "The title of his collection Bach's Great Organ Works is attributed, according to legend, to his wife Anna Magdalena Bach upon the delivery of their umpteenth child." OK, maybe not-so-subtle vandalism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Familyman has been blocked, and upon Dpbsmith's comments above I also blocked Scriabin.  But upon further extensive investigation I couldn't find evidence justifying a block of Scriabin, so I have unblocked him.  I have an open mind about this and welcome comments by others.  I'm particularly reluctant to disagree with Dpbsmith, who has almost always been right here and has been with us since nearly the beginning.  Thanks, Dpbsmith!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::(You're welcome!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT) P. S.  Since it wasn't at all obvious (and still isn't) that Scriabin's edit represented abuse, and since he wasn't making rapid edits, I should have asked him about this on his Talk page instead of going here. I've now done so now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Scriabin and I have exchanged mutual apologies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I am reporting [[user: Conservative]] He was involved in a dispute with AmesG and then unilaterally decided to ban him for a week, using a power he possessed and AmesG does not. That is a blatant abuse of SysOp authority - the proper course of action would have been to bring in another SysOp as a neutral third party to decide the matter. I am asking that AmesG be re-instated and Conservative be given a warning for his abuse of authority. This kind of ham-handed banning will give this site a bad reputation that will be hard to shake.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*[[Eric Mukherjee]]. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:'''(removed names - these people may not be involved.  Unfair to publically name and shame them if they are not)'''--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
[[user: JC]] is a suspected vandal.  Could some one revert his edits I have done some but I don't thave time right now to search through everything. ([[User:AustinM|AustinM]])
 
−
 
−
:What is going on?
 
−
:[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] gets granted exclusive rights to put the [[creationist]] view on the [[Theory of evolution]] article. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] banns [[User:JC|JC]] for putting the creationist view on other articles, claiming it is vandalism. [[User:AustinM|AustinM]] then goes and vandalizes the [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[John Major]] and [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] articles. Are Conservatives fighting amongst each other in order to decide whose version of reality gets to be the definitive one? Can't wait for the SYSOPs banning SYSOPs melee.
 
−
:This site is an endless source of surreal entertainment. I can't really see anyone taking it seriously as an encyclopedia.
 
−
:I assume I'll get banned for pointing that out.
 
−
:[[User:WhatIsGoingOn|WhatIsGoingOn]] 15:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Handy jargon: on Wikipedia, this is known as a "wheel war." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::Interesting, I always idly wondered about that term means (and always forgot to look it up), so thanks for the info! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::[[User:Niandra|Niandra]] did infact ban [[User:WhatIsGoingOn|WhatIsGoingOn]] for his/her one and only contribution - on a talk page. I take it freedom of speech (obscenity aside) isn't part of the Conservapedia philosophy, or is stating uncomfortable truths considered vandalism here?
 
−
::Will I now get banned too?
 
−
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
===Christianity===
 
−
The page has been blocked to prevent editing, which I would normally commend had the content been accurate, except that the existing definition of Christianity is a weak rendition of the actual Biblical revelation.  It should not be defined by a Harris poll! If you are to be any better than Wikipedia, you must want truth to be objectively stated.  For something as important as one's eternal relationship with God Himself, the information better be accurate! 
 
−
 
−
In Wikipedia, when Christians try to edit, say to some cult's page, the cult members merely come and erase it and edit it out.  Truth doesn't matter to the site, and they allow the false claims to continue.  That should be different here!  Truth is objective, and can be known by anyone, believer or unbeliever in Christianity.  Facts are still facts.  But we can only write articles to the level of our knowledge.  Whoever wrote, wrote what he could, but it can be improved, and should be allowed to be improved.
 
−
 
−
I would suggest a respected editorial Board for Christian issues.  All Christian denominations surprisingly agree on the basics such as are in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds of the Church.  There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Jesus is fully God and flly man; He died and rose physically from the dead; He offers salvation solely on account of His grace, His works on our behalf, as our Substitute, taking the wrath of God due us.  God calls us to repent and believe, and that faith is a "gift, that no man may boast."(Eph.2:8,9). Our salvation is because of the works of Christ alone, and we have this knowledge from inspired Scripture alone, etc.
 
−
 
−
All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.  But in order to show the truth of various claims, there must be accuracy in reporting the facts -- objectivity.  As it is right now, the definition of Christianity is far too limited. 
 
−
 
−
Who do we talk to in order to submit changes for its editing?
 
−
Thank you,
 
−
 
−
PD Popejoy
 
−
 
−
:''All three major branches of Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy would agree that Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations, but rather non-Christian cults or religions.''
 
−
:They, on the other hand would disagree.  Are we going with [[Truth By Headcount]], now?  If so, the Christians were Wrong(tm) back when the Roman Empire was using them for lion chow.  --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: I'm not sure where this stands now, and I apologize for being late on this discussion.  But I wanted to say this:  let's avoid using the word "cult" to describe any group.  It seems overly pejorative and not encyclopedic.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Mr. Schlafly is correct.  Too many words are bandied about all over the Net.  Jim Jones, of Jonestown--Peoples Temple infamy, he ran a "Cult".  So think of him, and his tragedy, before applying that word. Last I checked, neither the JW's or LDS people were telling their people to drink Kool-aid laced with poison, so they could cross over and meet Jesus. 
 
−
 
−
Blocked [[user:JesusSaves]] for three days.  Reason for it was in repeated inclusion of a nonsensical line in the article [[Genesis]], and his decision to begin and escalate an argument about it.  When given a last warning to stop, he continued.  It's documented on the [[Genesis]] talk page.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:I have to tell you, this is a mirror image of when Conservative blocked AmesG.  Karajou, you were involved in a personal dispute with the user and should probably get a fellow sysop to sign off on that.
 
−
 
−
:From [[Talk:Genesis]] "If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. Karajou 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)"
 
−
 
−
:The fight was with you... get a neutral sysop to go with you... you probably had a case but booting him yourself removes your moral authority.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: I reviewed this debate betwen Karajou and JesusSaves at length.  While blocking is always a last resort, it is appropriate when someone is repeatedly interfering with productive work.  Karajou could have locked the page, but that would have prevented others from contributing to this work-in-progress.
 
−
 
−
:: JesusSaves should have deferred to the person doing the most work on the entry (Karajou).  It's not right for a bystander to come along and repeatedly insist on placing a dot somewhere in the Mona Lisa as Da Vinci paints it.  Karajou warned JesusSaves repeatedly, and even then blocked him for only 3 days.
 
−
 
−
:: Put another way, we don't allow a heckler's veto here.  Some professional courtesy and deference is appropriate, and Karajou need not divert his efforts to track down other SYSOPs in this situation.  I hope JesusSaves will return and not insist on his same edit yet again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::Personaly, I did not like the thought of having him, or anyone else for that matter, removed from the site.  I think a better preference for myself at least would be to contact another sysop or Aschlafly for arbitration should another incident happen.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
------------------
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
I responded on your talk page. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Long-term tasks==
 
−
I made a "short" list of redirects that still exist after the "on wheels" move vandalism. I believe they should be cleaned up... But instead of actually editing fifty redirect pages to include them in the "Speedy Delete" category, I just compiled a list at [[User:Sid 3050/Deletion List]]. I also included the Delete links AND lined them up in a nifty column so you can just click away if you like. (Yes, I've been having far too much fun with regular expression replacements there. I'm weird like that.) =P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: Did someone beat me to it?  I tried and there was nothing to delete for everything I clicked.  Thanks for your superb list!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Yeah, whatever. MountainDew reacted to the call within minutes, so you should praise him. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
== Hitler article ==
 
−
The Hitler article is locked to prevent vandalism, but the most recent changes by [[User:RobS | RobS]] and [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]] are nothing short of vandalism.  --[[User:Order|Order]] 19 March, 14:00 (AEST
 
−
:I fail to see how I vandalized this page by adding information. I have unprotected it to allow work. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::These are all the edits [[User:RobS]] made to the Hitler article when [[User:Order]] made this complaint. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47024&oldid=46637][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47052&oldid=47024][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47058&oldid=47052][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47061&oldid=47058][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47330&oldid=47061][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47331&oldid=47330]  [[User:Order]] (A) failed to respond to my request to cite ''any'' factual errors, and (B) claimed he really meant another user other than myself after posting extensive false and defamatory information about me under two subheadings on this page. [[User:James Lipton]] has meanwhile repeated privately the malicious defamations directed at myself based upon what he read here written by [[User:Order]].
 
−
 
−
:::This appears to be classic Wikipedia & liberal bullying aimed at intimidating another user.  Both these users need to be held to account for thier conduct.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::It looked like subtle vandalism, by inserting many red herrings and factual erros. Thanks for unprotecting it, although I am not sure where to begin first. The article bebfore the ''improvment drive'' was maybe short, and a bit simplistic, but at least fairly correct.--[[User:Order |Order]] 19 March 20:00 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
*I posted over there at the Hitler talk page.  Let's hope cooler heads will manage the rather simple task of informing users what Hitler was, and what it was he ordered, without getting bogged down in nitpicks and petty arguments.  When examining '''true Evil''', and trying to explain it, we simply don't have time for that kind of crap. --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Can somebody stop [[User:RobS | RobS]] from editing the Hitler article. Every entry he adds contains at least two factual errors, and he presents legends on Hitler as facts. He doesn't do any research before an edit, and probabaly just relies on his recollections from either history class or his grandmother. Locking this page to prevent vandalism doesn't help, if there is a not-so-subtle vandal among the sysops. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
: And [[User:TK|TK]] is posted copyrighted material. As a sysop. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 12:30 (AEST)
 
−
:There is no subtle vandalism going on, it is a good faith effort to improve this article. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:How do you distinguish? If they weren't sysops, they would or should have gotten a warning.  --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 17:55 (AEST)
 
−
::Intent [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::They have been told a few times, especially [[User:RobS | RobS]] that the edits conatin many factual errors. That didn't keep him from introducing more. I assume he did it with intend, since I assume that he is able to google for actual information, rather relying on myths,  legends, or made up stuff. If he is not able do that, I wouldn't blame him of course. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March, 14:00 (AEST).
 
−
*You distingush by reading the history. :p The attribution was in one of my drafts, and in all the moving and re-arranging, wasn't there when I finished in the middle of the night. Is this place always such a tempest in a teapot? I posted material that is in the public domain, not copyrighted, and attributed. If you see something like what I did, and know the attribution, it is your duty and right to add it in. If you don't know it, rather than running like a baby to abuse, you should contact the person who edited it. My email is listed here, my IM is listed. Does that not sound fair? The page was a freakin' mess. The page is supposed to be about Hitler...they were all over the map. The focus is now back where it should have been all along. I think far too many of you isolate yourselves, rather than communicating, and the last few posts are a good example.
 
−
 
−
*I assumed that you had just dumped some material for further improvement. That why I said that I was looking forward to the final version. The material that you posted was  at least mostly factual. The strom in the teapot, is because the article as it was, was nothing more than a Miffy version of History. "Hitler planned a putsch in a beer hall. The army storms the room. Hitler trips and falls. Look, Hitler is unharmed. Hitler escapes." That has nothing to do with a serious entry on this guy. Thats why I was glad that you at least infused some factual material, even if it's from another site. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
:*Then the purpose of posting here, before you ascertained any of the facts, was what, exactly?  I am not looking to beat this horse, but I think my comments were valid, and my solution, quoting one of the foremost experts on the "Final Solution" and Adolf Hitler was better than what was going on.  Sometimes one can and should copy.  Only this wasn't even that, just my dumb mistake to leave the attribution off the final compilation, even though the quotes and link are on my Word copy of it.  The point is, it explains who and what Hitler was.  As for the rest of the page, if you all could stop sniping at one another, and hammer it all out on the talk page, it would be even better.  I almost removed all the rest of the crap there, and perhaps I should have, and only transfered over what was posted and cited on the talk page.  Do you think that would have been a better solution?  I just get a bit riled when people run around shouting "dishonest" without ever looking at the facts present, or at least having the decency to ask.  Now, why don't you get in touch, and together perhaps, since you have the interest in the topic, we can do what we can to make the page even more informative? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 06:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:: Didn't I say that I was actually pleased that you put the Wiesel speech into the article. I'm happy to say it again. I was glad about your material, and I was looking forward for it to be intergrated with the rest, or even replace the rest, where possible. [[User:Order|Order]] 20 March 21:10 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
Please feel free to make a new header on the talk page, and give me your thoughts. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
[[Category:Conservapedia maintenance]]
 
−
 
−
== John Howard article ==
 
−
 
−
This article appears to have a history of silly edits.  The latest is by the aptly named "Not a Conservative".  [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=56564&oldid=54024 Here] it is.  I suggest he be blocked.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Doesn't Australia have a house of Commons? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::No, the Federal Parliament consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The various State Parliaments have their own upper and lower houses excepting Queensland which did away with its upper house at some point.  --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:okay. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
== Abuse of sysop priviledge ==
 
−
There are a few protected pages, and probably with good reason, but this doesn't work if a sysop starts to enter factual errors, and opinion and slander into protected articles, and nobody cares to fix it. [[User:RobS| RobS]] first replaced extended a fairly brief and sketchy article on Hitler, and introduced irrelevant subsections, rumors and slander, and many factual errors. An article that was too brief, but a good start turned into one of the worst on Conservapedia. (If I have time this weekend I might start cleaning it, now that it's unlocked). Now RobS started to mess with the article on [[Liberals]]. It was a fairly stable version, fairly factual, even if written from a conservative viewpoint. But [[User:RobS|RobS]] now started to insert slander, about democrats supporting Saddam. This is just opening a can of worms about which side supported more fascistoid dictators. But it cannot be removed, because it is protected, and only [[User:RobS|RobS]] can edit. I would suggest to take his sysop rights away, because he repeatedly violate the standard that conservapedia wants to set, namely that articles should be factual, and free of gossip and slander. [[User:Order | Order]] 23 March 12:05 (AEST)
 
−
*You refered to a citation [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47052&oldid=47024] to [[Lucy Dawidowicz]], [one of the most respected Holocaust historians of the past 50s years, as a "rant". [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=47096&oldid=47087] You did this presumably because you could not respond to her words, so you came here and posted garbage about me.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::* I didn't call her words a rant, but the fact that you included her words to suggest that the gay victims do not actually matter. Not the point she wanted to make was the issue, but the point you wanted to make. [[User:Order]] 30 March, 10:15 AEST
 
−
:::*So, you attacked the messenger of bad news on two pages.  And you have nothing, absolutely nothing, to refute Dawidowicz with. Then, given the sensitive nature of this subject, you impugned me rather than address Dawidowicz.  How Wikipedia-esque.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::* I didn't shoot the messenger. I was extermely annoyed at you as a sysop, who abuses his privileges to edit an article, without discussion, while his edits are contested. This whole episode of clinging stubbornly to one particular version cost more time than necessary. Because, in the end we were able to agree on something quite close to the compromise that was outlined in the very beginning. But due to an assymetry in power which was used in your atvanatge,  we did fight over access, rather than over content. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 2:00 (AEST)
 
−
::::* In this context the Dawidowicz was inappropiate. And if you are looking for some arguments against the dawidowicz quote, just read the article that you qouted. I don't want to refute the Dawidowics article. It just unencyclopedic to plunge a quote, by someone who is not introduced, out of context, somewhere, without context. That is close to being a 'rant'.
 
−
:::::However, if you want to discuss the relative importance of gay victims, you can for example start with the fact that there where about 20000 or so gay victims (these numbers are by memory), which is not much compared to the 6 million dead jews, or 20 million dead russians. If you want to discuss it, discuss it with context. The way you dealt with it was bad, without context. From a long article describing the plight of homosexuals, you select the single sentence that rejects it. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 2:00 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
::::::You haven't said anything new here, and the discussion on Hitler/Talk was extensive, and beneficial to all involved.  You did characterize Dawidowicz as a rant, and my insertion was in the Holocaust section.  The quote is right here (as similiar claims throughout Conservapedia have appeared elsewhere),
 
−
 
−
::::::''He was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, many disabled persons, and homosexuals, along with many other groups, through the so-called "final solution". ''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47024&oldid=46637#Final_Solution]
 
−
 
−
:::::: and I beleive we all undersand the Hitler article and others will not be used to promote the gay agenda for the false claim that "millions of homosexuals" were exterminated by Nazis, as "right-wing" "[[Dominionist#The_.22Christer.22_controversy|Dominionist]]s" also wish to do.
 
−
 
−
::::::I suspect you purposefully came here to impugn me as anti-Semitic and rally others to  this sentiment.  And in my personal view, this is an abuse of your editing priveleges.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::::*I am fine with the version in [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47024&oldid=46637#Final_Solution]. My comment referred to this edit:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=47052&oldid=47024].
 
−
::::::*The conservapedia entry never said that millions of homosexuals were killed. And thats how it should be, because it is not true. You are barking up the wrong tree.
 
−
::::::*I am still puzzled why you quoted from a pro-gay article, the single anti-gay quote? Its like arguing in favor of intelligent design, and citing an article by Dawkins is which her refers to Behe.
 
−
::::::*What has anti-semetic do do with this? Why should I blame you for anti-semitism?[[User:Order|Order]] 6 April 11:00 (AEST)
 
−
:::::::The stunt worked and the kid who took the bait got his fingers burned.  Let's put this kind of stuff behind us and focus on addressing issues, facts, and sources.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I unlocked Hitler. I locked it.  What is the problem with it now, Order?  Better than posting here, you know darn well how to get hold of me. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 22:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Well, his problems weren't just with [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] but with [[Liberals]], too.  That came out wrong.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: When it was just about the Hitler article, I kind of assumed that [[User:RobS]] probably just rephrased hearsay from a German grandmother. But his changes to the liberal article show that Rob just likes to produce unencyclopedic entries. And unlocking the articles that he messes up is one option, but another would be to not have him be sysop anymore, because he doesn't know that that privilege also brings responsibility. The article on liberals is a great example
 
−
 
−
** Aschlafly protected the article on March 13
 
−
** Next edit on 22 March by [[User:RobS]].
 
−
** First edit says ''protection of all of God's creation'' '''even if advocated by atheists'''. Bold added by [[User:RobS]]. He just ignores that many liberals a Christians, and many Christians are liberal. Unnecessarily offensive.
 
−
** Same edit he adds '''opposition to American foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy'''. Of course liberals would complain about the assertion that the current administration advocates human rights. But worse is the assertion that liberals don't. You might not like, for example, Carter, but he is supporting human rights and liberal. And Christian.
 
−
** Calling liberal parties in Europe '''so-called''' ''moderate and center-right''. The is nothing '''so-called''' about heir position. This just shows lack of knowledge of European liberal parties. The worst part about it that there was a lengthy discussion on the talk page. A few editors were struggling to find a good compromise, to characterize the European situation. [[User:RobS]] just shows an enormous amount of disrespect, by disregarding the work by other editors, and the information they provide, to make it more factual.
 
−
::*You have a diff for this claim?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::This one should do [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=58158&oldid=58154] [[User:Order]] 5 April, 2:20 (AEST)
 
−
::::ohhh, ok.  This is a reference to the Politcal Spectrum Theory once again. People are not born "moderate" or  "center-right" as they are Jewish for example, or Black, male or female, or as some would theorize "born homosexual".  We can't pass off theories like "leftism" for example, as being doctrinal or definitive of anything.  It means different things to different people and different cultures at different places at different times.  It's all subjective, and not very definitive or anything.  [[User:RobS|RobS]]
 
−
:::::In that case the 'so-called' should preceed any mention of left or right, preferrably throughout Conservapdia. [[User:Order]] 6 April 11:00 (AEST)
 
−
::::::I agree. And it's gonna be a lot of work.  It would help to get solid definitions, but so far all we've seen is
 
−
:::::::''A liberal is a leftist''--->click here
 
−
:::::::''A leftist is a liberal''--->click here
 
−
:::::::''leftist oppose oppression.  Hence Communists are leftists''
 
−
:::::::I'll just revert til the cows come home until somebody seriously tackles this issue.  But it's not my place to define nonsense I quit trying to make sense out of thirty years ago.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
** In is next edit he claims that liberals support Saddam. That's simply an opinionated fringe position. Not suitable for an article.
 
−
** In the next edit, he makes his statement even more opinionated, and claims that liberals now reject democracy.
 
−
** Next few edits he fixes typos.
 
−
** Then, after his claim  that liberals reject foreign policy which advocates human rights and democracy was removed by another editor, he puts it back in with a reference to an article that strongly criticizes Vice-president Cheny. He might have done it for two reasons:
 
−
*** First to show that there exists a liberal who rejects the spread of human rights and democracy. But one liberal rejecting it doesn't make it a ''liberal'' position. Worse, the article does not reject such a policy, it rejects the claim by the administration that they did it to advance human rights. He just didn't read the article he quoted. Or worse, because he might added the quoye for the following reason:
 
−
***He just wanted to give an article that is critical on the bush administration free publicity. This would be a case of subtle vandalism.
 
−
** When another editor removes it for good reason, he just puts it back. Without much discussion.
 
−
:Right now there are about 5 editors busy to undo his changes, which [[User:RobS]] just reverts, usually without much discussion. In this way he frustrates a big fraction of the regular contributors. [[User:Order]] 23 March 16:20 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
*I would submit that, even though I have had occasional differences with Rob, as all of you have been witness to, I find his writing and contributions, as does Andrew Schlafly‎, to be superlative. He made many valuable contributions to the Ronald Reagan page, as well as the Hitler page.  He has had two or three recent articles (that he made) made featured pages here, by Andrew. Try to remember that this is the Conservapedia.  As it should be, things will be represented from that point of view.  Many parties in the EC are called "moderate" and, as viewed from here, by Conservatives, they are anything but.
 
−
 
−
:As to Liberals and Human Rights, President Carter for example, I see his concern for such rights certainly blossomed since he left the White House, which is good, as his record there, aside from babble, was pretty dismal on real actions.  One would note that real dollar aide to Africa, Sudan in particular, and AIDS Relief, has been increased some 200% under current President Bush, as opposed to President Clinton.  You've got the wrong person here to repeat crap you get from liberal websites and blogs here.  Any of you can IM me and have a dialog where I can point you to factual information, pro and con, on almost any recent administration.  I can safely say, Jimmy Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't like, and his support of them, if not such a tragedy, would be laughable.  One notes that recently some of his closest associates have publicly and reluctantly, questioned his judgement, with the anti-Semitic statements he has made the last year or so.  I just chalk it up to age.
 
−
 
−
:Finally, let me say something about ''communication''. IMO, most of the people here, including Andrew, are pretty poor at it. One cannot write major articles, contribute, and hammer out compromises, merely posting back and forth in the discussion pages.  More of you should be using the IM's from whatever service, to ask questions and receive answers speedily, and to clear up budding misunderstandings.  Instead, doing as most of you seem to want, we are saddled with a bunch of crying to "Uncle Andy" about all manner of bull that has nothing to do with this wiki.  And please spare the crap about privacy.  On any of the IM services, one can create a user ID in seconds, completely shielding this valued "privacy".  It seems too many are so hell-bent on "protecting" their ideology, compromise and cooperation are completely impossible.  It makes me wonder if all of you were like the class snitch back in grade school.  Everyone is pretty quick to post crying to Andy, writing up "abuse" here, labeling whatever work someone does that you disagree with as "vandalism".  Yet, when I check, I don't see posts on whoever is being complained about's talk page.  Nooooo....no one can be man enough to do that, instead everyone runs to "tell teacher".  Such actions, IMO, are cowardly, and not at all logical, but maybe most of you guys were used to getting beat up in elementary school. Yeah, when I get ticked off, I am a bit extra blunt, sorry if some of you are "fragile". Please don't sue me for emotional distress. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 02:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Dude, you really need to breathe a little, maybe count to ten before typing.  Who exactly are you addressing with that? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::First, I should add that I looked at RobS contribution when he was mangling the Hitler article, and I was surprised that he did indeed write some decent and good articles. The more I was puzzled, why he did so poor on the Hitler article. There he mostly added factual errors. In the article about ''Liberals'' he did not add too many factual errors, but turned a fairly factual article written with a conservative perspective, into an opinion piece. And added a few factual errors. I mean, if the liberal party of Austria looks left-wing to you (this is party where Haider was chairman), I have to assume that you are even more right wing than Haider. Many conservatives in the US aren't.
 
−
 
−
But the points, even if you agree with what RobS says, its is still an opinion, and has no place in an encyclopedic article. And I can see someone who is not exposed to the world outside of the US can make a mistake, in assessing European liberal parties, he should then at least look at the talk page, do a bit of research, and not start the entire discussion all over again. This is not about content, it's about style. And RobS style is that he abuses his sysop privileges.[[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
*The culture here, dude.  Most of the above should have been on the talk page at Liberal, I guess, or at RobS's talk page.  Everything under the sun, to some, seems to be "abuse".  It is rapidly becoming the most over-used word in the world. Whatever happened to actually chatting with one another, directly? I guess most of you won't get it. :S  --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 04:02, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:There has been a lengthy discussion on it on the talk page of "Liberals". The frustrating bit is that RobS willingly does not seem to care and do he want to do anyway. Look at the history of Liberals, and also at the history of the Hitler article. [[User:Order]] 23 March 19:10 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
*I will, and I am going to ask a couple of other Sysops who haven't contributed to the pages in question, to have a look also. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]</sup> 04:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Any progress on the bad Hitler article has now stalled, because [[User:RoBS]] remains uncooperative. [[User:Order| Order]] 26 March. 9:00 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
:::Okay, I'll unprotect it. Let's see what happens. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Well, thanks for the consult. :S  We are trying to stop this from happening by contacting the person who last locked it, before reversing their actions, just FYI. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::I just found this discussion; not to open a can of worms, but I challenge [[User:Order]] to find '''one''' singular factual error at Hitler, unless you wish to proceed with the understanding I thought was made on the Talk page.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::: One that we already discussed was that more than 2 people survived the Beer Hall Putsch. But, I was mostly irrtiated by your obstructionist approach, even more so since you edited and reverted a protected article, without discussion. But  I have to admit that the biggest factual erros were introduced by Geo, like that there was a runnoff election between social democrats and nazis, or that the nazi party was newly formed.  [[User:Order]] 30 March, 10:20 (AEST)
 
−
 
−
== New Users to watch ==
 
−
 
−
"The Phelpster" (possibly obsessed with Phelps)
 
−
"Hojimawang" (awfully close to our highly valued Sysop)
 
−
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Both already blocked for impersonation/inappropriate username. Sorry, but having a username as "The Phelpster" is completely unnecessary, and isn't going to cut it here. And "Hojimawang"? I don't think so... --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:: Now time for more BORF-hunting! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 13:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Some idiot keeps registering nonsense names about Hitler being a sensitive man. [[User:Sensitivity + Man = Hitler|Sensitivity + Man = Hitler]] 14:53, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*BORF. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 16:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I am officially nominating [[User:NeverForget]] as a BORF. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I nominate User:Sevenstring for Unsourced liberal comments:
 
−
*Axis of Evil [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Axis_of_Evil&diff=prev&oldid=76666]
 
−
*American Wars in the Twentieth Century [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Wars_in_the_Twentieth_Century&diff=prev&oldid=74379]
 
−
*Reaganomics [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Reaganomics&diff=prev&oldid=75081] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 01:55, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
While I think that, Crocoite, those edits were fairly stupid, you should be criticising him/her for unsourced comments - you seem to suggest that unsourced conservative comments would be fine ''cos they're like, certainly true''. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
 
−
 
−
== I'm being hounded and threatened! ==
 
−
 
−
Hojimachong is threatening me for "incivility and name-calling" when the reality is that I'm the one being hounded by these people.  See my talk page. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
*Please explain. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 04:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:That would be tough, as he's been blocked. For the record, Hoji did no such thing, ask him or Mtn. Dew about it. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 04:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
*Well, I wouldn't want to disturb you Kings.  Is there someplace one could look, to see why he was blocked? You could just IM me, its on the masthead of my page, dude. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 04:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:I didn't block him or have anything to do with his blocking. I was just trying to let you know what happened. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 04:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
*Dew was kind enough to fill me in, and un-delete his user talk page.  I appreciate you trying to fill me in. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==User:DogBreath==
 
−
Check out the user contibution of [[stupid]] and contributed images. [[User:Miland|Miland]] 07:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
==Mentalism==
 
−
 
−
There's no such thing. And even if there is Alan Partridge is a fictional character. [[User:Saved matt|Saved matt]] 07:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Kreskin is a "mentalist" ROFL! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==ACLU and Evolution==
 
−
I added the ACLU and Evolution section to the ACLU article [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854].  This section was sourced as well. Then the following editors proceeded to undo these edits and change them to their own unsourced liberal views.
 
−
#ACLU User:Reginod (Anne Coulter is not an expert on what the ACLU belives) [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=77166]
 
−
#ACLU User:AmesG [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=77166]
 
−
 
−
I think it is wrong for editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal views. This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.  [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 12:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:Oh please. Do you think that Ann Coulter has ''any'' kind of authority to speak about what the ACLU believes? Besides ''They're all evil godless hellbound commie pinkos'', she doesn't have any kind of authority, and if she does, it can be superseded by the views of other, more critical-minded people. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 12:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Ahem,
 
−
:''According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the 'separation of church and state,' which appears in the Constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses."''
 
−
:If that isn't a load of sarcasm on the part of Ms. Coulter, then I don't know what it is. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 12:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:First—I did not “change sourced conservative views and replace them with [my] own liberal views”.  I removed false claims supported by an unreliable source (and replaced them with nothing).
 
−
:Second—I clearly explained my edit, Anne Coulter is not an appropriate source for the agenda of the ACLU—she is a fine source for her interpretation of the agenda of the ACLU—she is even a reasonable source for the objections some (but not all) conservatives have to the ACLU—but she is not an appropriate source as used.  (And therefore my edit was completely in line with this site’s requirements).
 
−
:Third—your edit was in violation of this site’s rules, it made an untrue and unverifiable claim—if you can find one place where the ACLU actually claims that the Constitution has a “sodomy clause” I will gladly apologize, but until then, claims that they say the Constitution has such a clause do not belong on this site.  (If you really want to criticize the ACLU there is plenty to criticize them for without making false accusations and you should feel free to do that).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::Reginod, thank you for your comments. I see your points. I have added my original section to the article on Godless: The Church of Liberalism, where they are more appropriate. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::No problem Crocoite, sorry if I was a bit short with you in my reply, I just worry about getting painted with a broad “liberal” brush and having problems as a result.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:01, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::''Using "Ann Coulter" and "reasonable" in the same sentence...what's this world coming to?  That woman is like a real-life Internet Troll, only she gets paid big money to do it. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
The ACLU is the expert on what the ACLU believes.  Im sure they have something posted on their website? --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:The [[Liberal]] page has this statement,
 
−
:*''Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.''
 
−
:although there is little or no evidence of this; it's extremely open-minded of conservative editors that this should go unchallenged.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
:::And that is properly attributed to the American Heritage Dictionary.  Not stated as fact and then giving Ann Coulter as a source.  Apples, meet oranges. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
::::So long as it's the AHD and not the OED! [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub>
 
−
Crocoite, go home.  I should start a list of people trying to get me banned.  Want your name added?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Im not sure how thats relevant Rob...--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 12:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Huey==
 
−
 
−
Please, nobody undo his ban. He has sent me 7-8 nasty emails. He just sent me an email using characters to represent a depiction of a vulgar sexual act. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
== Racist Editor ==
 
−
 
−
It has come to my attention that [[user:TerryH]] believes that Osama Bin Laden represents the majority of Muslims:
 
−
:<s>"Declaring that "the eugenicists don't represent the community of scientists" is like declaring that Osama bin Laden does not represent the mainstream of Islam. That might or might not be true--that requires an official government inquiry, which no one seems to have the gonadal fortitude to call for--but as to the question of whether Osama bin Laden represents the text of Islam as written, whether he is or is not a "mainstream Muslim" is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial."</s> 
 
−
I find this massively offensive, and immature.  I hope action will be taken.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 22:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
'''Please read the notice at the very top of this page!'''
 
−
 
−
The user TerryH has many contributions, do you have a link to your quoted material above? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 22:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution#VERY_WEAK_ARTICLE] - here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
: I think racism is a higher degree of offense than others.  Action should be taken.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::So, you are telling me you want the sites policy changed, and users banned for racist statements on talk pages, not in the article itself, correct?  Are there any other types of statements you would like banned as well?  Sexist? Gender biased?  Calling someone a drunk?  Stupid? I'd be more than happy to throw in with you, if you can provide specific outline, and agree on The Decider. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 00:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
I see your point.  Talk page racism is not as dangerous as article-page racism.  Well argued.  Perhaps, though, we should keep an eye on his edits to make sure no ''articles'' bear his stigma, and judging by his vehemence, he may not be someone we want around anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 00:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Religious Tolerance Breeds Empathy==
 
−
"All religions and their traditions deserve to be examined, but there is a difference between critique and slander. And certainly there is a difference between insightful observations and naive comments." [http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/04/03/ArtsLiving/Tolerance.Breeds.Empathy-2819324.shtml Tolerance Breeds Empathy] A few people on this site are not practicing tolerance. I believe some of these people are professed Christians and have no problem slandering other religions. I don't agree with the notion that people should be free to say whatever they want on talk pages - look at these intolerant and demeaning statements [[User_talk:Crocoite|Mormonism a cult? Are you willing to go to Heaven for Jesus Christ, or are you willing to go to Hell for Joseph Smith?]]. Try this one [[Talk:Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians]]. Here's another one [[Talk:Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|The Mormon problem Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.]] I feel there should be rules for talk pages AND articles. It is not right to slander other religions, even on talk pages. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*So, in order to maintain ''order'', and spare anyone's feelings being hurt, you are willing to deny freedom of speech?  Article pages should be factual, however to restrain free thought on the talk pages, so long as not sexually explicit or profanity, seems a bit whacked.  --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:Ok, I get it, so long as someone doesn't use sexually explicit or profanity on talk pages it's free speech. I'll remember that whenever someone complains about Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]]<sup>[[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]]</sup> 11:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::This is not precise enough. The point is to focus your comments on improvements to the article. You can also chime in on any of our [[Debate topics]] or start one of your own. I won't stand for violations of [[free speech]]. Sysop [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*Crocoite, please present one example of my editing or removing, words or users, for participating on talk pages.  Absent name-calling and/or profanity, I agree with Ed.  What does the topic of the article mean to useful discussion? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 22:10, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==Cheney123==
 
−
In [[Democratic Party]] [[User:Cheney123]] added two images and a section - Image:A568.gif  and Image:A567.jpg -- neither of which are appropriate material. The contribution of such material shows a disregard for the people and the website itself. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
*User has been removed, vandalism. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
==James23==
 
−
[[User:James23]] is changing dates and adding incorrect information to articles. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
 
−
 
−
*We'll check it out. Thanks! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 23:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 00:08, April 11, 2007

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise.

Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives: 1 2 3

Other links:


Current Alerts

  1. Cooperstown4 (talk • contribs • count) - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
  2. Zac4213 (talk • contribs • count) - Was my block too hasty?
  3. CoulterMan (talk • contribs • count) - Seems to make habit of cut-and-paste from other sources; see, for example, his entry here for Sam Johnson versus that of Wikipedia's. Also seems prone to edit wars and non-factual assertions, but that's a whole other issue. A word to the wise, perhaps?--WJThomas 14:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


Dealt with

  1. User:Theelephant - Vandalism--Epicurius 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
    • 18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
  2. Amyz (talk • contribs • count) - I don't trust her edits - see Iran and Japan. I sure hope I'm wrong, though. --Ed Poor 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I see nothing abusive, maybe I'm just partial to editors who boldly take on controversial subjects. Asking for cites would be beneficial, like for this claim [1], "With Iran's assistance, Hezbollah launched terrorist attacks even against such clearly inoffensive countries as Argentina"; such properly sourced information would be invaluable. RobS 20:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I see no real abuse, much of the material is similar to Wikipedia, but there is no real direct copy and paste from what I can see. I would also agree with RobS that citations would be nice.--Elamdri 20:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Loljesus (talk • contribs • count) - deleted China
    • Damage contained - user blocked by MountainDew
  2. (Notavandal01 (talk • contribs • count) - vandalism, blocked by MountainDew
  3. Sanity (talk • contribs • count) - hostile user page, signs as the indefinitely blocked Icewedge (talk • contribs • count)
  4. Dandriscoll (talk • contribs • count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • Blocked by MountainDew
  5. Icewedgeisi (talk • contribs • count) - many tiny edits
    • Blocked by Elamdri
  6. Weeeeee (talk • contribs • count) - vandalism, most notably this, signed as Icewedge
    • Blocked by--CPAdmin1 19:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
  7. Reagan316 (talk • contribs • count) (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Page Vandalism/Nonsense contribs.)
    • Blocked by TK23:29, 1 April 2007
  8. Dandriscoll (talk • contribs • count) - suspected parodist, see Fear
    • 19:01, 31 March 2007 MountainDew (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Dandriscoll (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (a parodist)
  9. Ayns Daughter (talk • contribs • count) -Blocked by MountainDew
  10. User:AnonymousLegion - Vandalism--Epicurius 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --Elamdri 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  11. User:Mjc12 - blocked by Conservative
  12. Polarbear (talk • contribs • count) - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by Elamdri 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  13. TK blocked Cheney123 (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&oldid=98590"