Revision as of 00:51, March 16, 2007

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.--Dave3172 16:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

• Eric Mukherjee. Suspect harmless undergraduate prankster hi-jinks. No sources provided. 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)--AustinM 12:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT) You're right, I shouldn't have done that. Thanks for removing them. 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.

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. --Scrap 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I responded on your talk page. MountainDew 02:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Current Alerts

Skeeter for vandalism of Christianity -- TempestHead

Donej for his "emo" article --TempestHead

If someone could ban Fuckyourself, for obvious reasons.

Banned Geo. 01:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Look at Examples of Bias in Conservapedia. Nuff said. --Splark 02:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Been there, deleted that, got the hat. Geo. 02:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Somebody ban the kid, please. --Splark 02:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm no kid, I'm simply telling you what you need to change before this site can be accurate. Everything.

User:JesusWasAnExtraterrestrial for creating the article anus Parrothead 20:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Liebniz

I am asking that Leibniz be warned, if not temporarily banned, for repeatedly interjecting argumentative opinion into articles.--Dave3172 17:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationism

Creationism

Evolutionist JoshuaZ has arbitrarily erased the correct definition of Creationism two times now.

Issue #1:

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

Issue #2:

At any rate, I ask that my rendering of Creationism be reviewed by Administration to be the correct rendering and that JoshuaZ be informed of the ruling if in my favor.

Proposed Rendering

"Creationism is the belief that physical reality plainly reflects the work of invisible Divine power (Romans 1:20) and original causation of matter and life was by supernatural agency (Genesis 1:1; chapters 1 and 2). Universally, Creationism is the belief that a Creator is responsible for producing reality (general revelation) and that this revelation is the primary way of deducing the existence of said Deity. Based on observation, Creationism asserts scientific evidence is better explained when a Creator is presupposed to have created reality."

Ray Martinez 14:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it is logical and plain common sense that an evolutionist should have no say in defining his scientific rival because said rendering is bound to be riddled with bias and error.

I fully agree. By that logic, User:Conservative needs to stay OUT of the Theory of Evolution article. --Scrap 20:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Finished

Conservative as an Admin

Giving Conservative admin status, and protecting articles like Young Earth Creationism, has resulted in absolutely abominable, biased, unrepresentative articles. Someone should look into this; possibly an unbiased admin?--AmesG 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You would have to go higher up the ladder since an Admin would have equal authority as me. User:Aschlafly, who has authority over the Admins, has been working with me regarding a very similar article Theory of Evolution and he has had no complaints about the article. I don't think your complaints here are going to go very far. Here is what user Aschlafly has said about the Theory of Evolution article: "By the way, Theory of Evolution ranks number 3 in our most-visited pages, after the Main Page and Bias in Wikipedia. Well done!--Aschlafly 00:17, 27 February 2007 (EST)"[1] Conservative 23:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, could you give us your reasons as to why the page is still protected? Will it be opened again to edits? --Dave3172 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that User:Aschlafly should make the decision whether to unlock the page. However, should the page be unlocked and the direction the article takes be changed (pro-evolution view interjecting), I think it should be re-protected given User:Aschlafly previously mentioned endorsement of the page. Also, Aschlafly has called this encyclopedia Conservapedia and the creationist position is certainly a truly conservative view. Conservative 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'll throw in my $0.02: From what experience I have working with Conservative and reviewing his edits, he is by and large a respectful and talented editor. Of course he has strong political and religious beliefs; nobody doesn't. But he definitely pulls his weight, and causes more good than harm. I'm not saying that all of his edits are up to chalk, but they all can be welded into shape. --Hojimachong^talk 23:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Hojimachong, thank you for your kind words. Conservative 23:31, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

My only grievances are the two articles listed, but I believe my fears have already been addressed. Apparently the goal of this site is not a Neutral POV, but an insular pro-fundamentalist Christian regime, which Conservative is actively following. As much as I decry that goal, you are acting within it.--AmesG 01:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with AmesG. While this is a conservative encyclopedia, there are many conservatives who are evolutionists. I am personally an Old Earth creationist, but I don't believe that the other side's view should be censored, especially when many of my respected conservative friends' beliefs clash directly with mine. --Splark 02:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Note that AmeG has now been blocked by Conservative. JoshuaZ 16:41, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

*waves a hand*

could one of the editors go smack whoever defaced Women in the Military? please? Thanks. Navy Nuke 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)