Changes

Instead of removing the vote completely, if you consider the accompanying comments to be rude, why not just remove that part while leaving the actual vote and the signature? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

Instead of removing the vote completely, if you consider the accompanying comments to be rude, why not just remove that part while leaving the actual vote and the signature? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:18, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

== Your reverts ==

== RobSmith block ==

Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

You realize you changed Andy's block on [[User:RobSmith]], don't you? He was the one to set it to one month. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:02, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll.  JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT) I miss TK.

:I was going to say the same thing. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::Yes, I'm afraid so. Perhaps I'll get into trouble for it, but if you'd seen what I've seen you'd have done worse. I don't want to give the parodists more of what they want by dragging the details out into the open, but I assure you Rob's infinite block was more than deserved. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:06, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Rob is a parodist? I doubt it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:08, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

And the point is moot now because Iduan has changed it back, a decision which I of course will respect. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:07, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I was just saving my explanation on here when you responded. Yes, I reverted, sir - I don't mean it as anything personal at all, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but I think in this case the higher-ups are best suited to make these decisions - and Andy is ''the'' high-up, so I think it's best to yield to his judgement.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 19:10, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here.  All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all.  Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning.  We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him.  We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::Ah, and I was just responding on your talk page when you posted this. Don't worry, I didn't take it that way at all and I quite understand your position. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:14, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents. 

:::It seems that your British spelling is proper. Tell us a bit more about yourself, than what's on your user page.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:17, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.)  Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here.  Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive.  When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space.  Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site.  We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.

:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers.  You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist.  You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist.  How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them?  It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max?  When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Certainly. As you've observed I'm British, living in Oxford after studying at University there. I work in the IT industry as a systems analyst, which is extremely boring but pays the bills. I'm an Anglican and a Tory as well as a keen field sportsman and amateur stonemason (an odd hobby, I know). If anything in particular interests you, please do ask - I don't mean to be reticent on my user page, I just never know what to put in those places. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:30, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

 

I noticed you deleted my post - I wasn't trying to be mean when I posted about the 90/10 rule. I've just noticed you haven't editing any articles, just talk pages. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:20, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

:I didn't take it as mean, Sharon, just unhelpful in the context. If you must know, every time I sign on to CP I find vandalism and trolling that requires reverting, which I think is a valuable service to CP. No doubt I'll be told if the administrators don't see it that way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:30, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 

::You must have pretty bad luck then. While I have reverted vandals, etc, there have been many times I log on when everything's quiet - it gives me a chance to improve the site. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:14, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 

 

Hi there. I'd really like to improve this article because I think it's important, but not very good just now. A lot of the arguments it makes are based on old information or a misunderstanding of what evolutionists are saying. I've had a lot of debates with evolutionists and they just love being able to accuse us of using strawman arguments, and unfortunately there are a lot of them here. I think we should cut out a lot of the silly stuff and focus on promising areas like irreducible complexity. How does that sound? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:15, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Two suggestions: one, bring these points up on the talk page and see what other editors think about them; two, if you think a significant rewrite of the article is required, work on your own version in your userspace and ask for the input of major contributors to the existing article. Either way, to get any changes made you'll have to marshall your arguments to convince the other editors here that your changes are for the better. Making major changes unilaterally isn't going to help with that.  [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 09:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

 

 

 

Conservative asked me if I'm interested in creating an article on the "Elevatorgate" episode that has the atheists ripping each other's heads off, and I quite fancy the idea of doing it. However sadly Conservative has locked his talk page because he's busy, so I can't ask him for advice. There's so much info on this incident that it's almost embarrassingly easy to put something together, but what do we want to focus on to make a good, informative article? Watson's intolerance, Dawkins' aggression or the atheist movement's self-destructiveness? My personal opinion is the first and third of those, but I'd like some input from a more experienced CPer before I devote hours of my life to writing an article!

 

 

I don't feel good about reverting your reversion because you've been here a lot longer than me, but I honestly feel that there are issues with CP that need to be dealt with. Too much of the time CP is preaching to the choir and using a message that nobody else is going to listen to. Like I said on the talk page, I have a BSc in evolutionary biology and I'm pretty knowledgable on the subject. I have concluded for solid, SCIENTIFIC reasons that evolutionary theory is wrong, and we can easily demonstrate that. However we don't help ourselves by using arguments that people a lot less knowledgable than me can effortlessly shoot down. I hope you'll join the discussion on the "Counterexamples to evolution" talk page, because in my situation it would be really good if I could persuade you to add your firepower to my argument. Thanks. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:42, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:No need to be sorry, I can see your reasoning. One has to be very careful around here of evolutionists and atheists trying to subvert the project. They use a variety of tactics to do that, one of which is trying to sow doubts about the strength of our articles. Of course we're very happy to deal with legitimate discussion and criticism, but we have to be very sensitive to motivation. It's clear that you genuinely want to improve the article and supply the best arguments, but I suspect FCapra has a rather less wholesome motivation.  

:As for getting involved in the substance of the discussion, I'm afraid my knowledge of biology is very poor, so I can't really give an informed opinion. For what it's worth, I'll say that it's important to realize that simply because an evolutionist has an answer to a particular point, he isn't necessarily right about it. If some of the arguments given in the article are frequently criticized by evolutionists, that might just mean we should develop responses to their criticisms rather than dropping the point in question. For example, if evolutionists have a model for how social behaviour evolved, that doesn't mean the argument from social behaviour is false, simply that they have a putative answer to it. Rather than ceasing to argue against evolution using that argument, we should examine how their model is flawed and so doesn't in fact answer the point. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)