Difference between revisions of "User talk:HelpJazz"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sillly edit)
Line 186: Line 186:
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You are being silly but I will let it stand.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)
==Your block==
Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 14:05, 16 November 2008

Guidelines for my talk page
  • Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
  • Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
  • At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
  • Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
  • If you have been blocked by me: please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, email me and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).

The system is supposed to send me an email when my talk page is changed... but I don't think it's working. The regular email is working, though, so if for some reason I don't respond to a notice on my talk page, click here

Archives: Sep '07Oct '07Nov '07Dec '07Jan '08Feb-Apr '08May-Sep '08

For the good of the project

and despite sore provocation I have reverted some pointed words and trust that you can be relied on to respond in an appropriately responsible manner. Bugler 14:53, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

For the good of the project, you shouldn't have written them at all.
Don't get so worked up that I don't create new articles. There's no rule that says you have to create new articles, and it's certainly the idea of a wiki to edit other's articles, no? Plus, as I've already said, I have created numerous articles. I don't enjoy it, and I'm not good at it. I'm not here to please you, and I'm not going to try.
It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that I have done no work on this site, when I have been doing work all morning long, and you have been simply reverting me on two pages. Now I have real work (i.e. the money-making kind) so I won't be bothering you with my non-work for the rest of the day. HelpJazz 15:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Edit war

I'm addressing both you and Bugler. Stop your edit warring and try working together for the good of Conservapedia. BrianCo 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


I seem to recall from the equivalent template on Wikipedia that the template would only display the correct case of the title in certain circumstances (such as Javascript enabled). Is this still the case, or does it always correct the display of the title?

And the reason that you were able to edit a locked page is that it wasn't locked! It had been locked, but was deleted by a sysop who didn't understand its purpose. Deleting a locked page and reinstating it causes (or used to cause?) the locking to be lost.

Philip J. Rayment 03:31, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you have to have javascript enabled, but I might be wrong. It uses the DISPLAYTITLE... uh thing. It's not a template, and it seems to be built into the wikicode much like {{CURRENTDAY}}. I don't know a lot about how wikis work behind the scenes, but the template is used on Wikipedia, so if it doesn't work all of the time it works most of the time.
This is from the page of the WP template that I, uh, "borrowed" from: This template wraps the magic word DISPLAYTITLE so that it works automatically in any namespace (main, talk, template, etc.) to decapitalise the first letter of the name of a page it is transcluded on. (Previously, this template achieved this using JavaScript, but the DISPLAYTITLE method makes the change for all users, even those with JavaScript disabled in their browser). So we should be fine. :) HelpJazz 13:06, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Ah, very good. Thanks for that. I've now changed the Manual of Style page. Philip J. Rayment 22:00, 5 October 2008 (EDT)


You're breakin' my back on the Brokeback article! :-) I hope you can see that I'm very willing to defend my points, and I appreciate the civility with which you've been treating them (unlike some other posters on that page). I'm going to continue as much as I can today, but I'm leaving for a weeklong trip tonight so I won't be able to respond until I get back. Hopefully the page won't blow up to enormous proportions in the meantime :0 -Foxtrot 13:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Ha ha ha! I was actually just about to tell you that I'm not trying to be harsh. I think you're a good editor, so my comments are (to the best of my ability) aimed at the article and not at you. I'll keep an eye on the page and keep it honest while you are gone. Have a good trip. HelpJazz 14:17, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks! See you on the talk pages in a week. -Foxtrot 20:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm back and will get to the posts on Brokeback Mountain probably tomorrow. In the meantime, I've noticed that the categories now appear in double boxes. Do you know why that is? It seems redundant. -Foxtrot 22:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Nevermind, I've found the relevant thread on Andy's talk page (it explains the appearance of other things like the new CAPTCHA, which I don't like). -Foxtrot 22:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Me neither. Hopefully it will change, or I may very well never {{welcome}} a user again! HelpJazz 22:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
I didn't even think of that detail! Speaking of which, why is there an external link that occurs when we're doing a {{welcome}} anyway? -Foxtrot 23:08, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
The link to Interiot's edit counter (which doesn't actually work right now) is an outside link. Don't forget that "internal" diff links (like this, for example), counts as an outside link. HelpJazz 23:21, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Now those I can help you with. Administrators have the ability to add a web-site to a "white list" so that those addresses will not trigger the CAPTCHA. I've added Interiot's tool and Conservapedia itself. Give them a try and let me know if it works. It's not, of course, an ideal solution for all the other possible links. Philip J. Rayment 04:59, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
You mean this whole time there was a simple solution? Oh man. Let's test. HelpJazz 09:38, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
Hey it worked! You'd think the software would be smart enough to have the domain site on the whitelist by default... Thanks soooooooo much Philip! HelpJazz 09:39, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Vote McCain

Vote McCain!!! Fry2000

Thank you!

Thanks for the block! LiamG 19:23, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I do what I can :) HelpJazz 19:24, 16 October 2008 (EDT)


Well, well. I always thought you were British, for some reason. Bugler 17:33, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Nope. Never even visited. HelpJazz 17:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

addition article

Is there a way to check the user John Peters ? His name is red link in the history. The text added to the article may be correct but makes the article very complex if aimed at a high school level. Markr 23:56, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. "Checkuser" (which I don't have) only tells you what other users have used the same IP address as him, but that doesn't really help in this case. HelpJazz 00:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)


When I attempted to log in today, I received a notice that my IP address was blocked. I think a schoolmate of mine got himself blocked by you. First and foremost, I apologize for my classmates inappropriate behavior. I will look into who it was and see if I can get them removed from the lab. I would like to ask, however, if something like this happens in the future, is there anyone I can contact about removing the IP block or is it best to just ride it out? Thank you NateE Let Us Communicate 17:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS, I had to edit another user's signature before it would let me post. I think their user name contained something that the spam filter blocked out

I think the best thing to do is email the person who blocked IP address and include the IP address or block number (it's shown when you try to edit a page). In this case, since you are only blocked at school, you could ask someone with checkuser rights (basically any sysop) to unblock your IP address. I have no way of looking it up, but they can help. HelpJazz 17:19, 23 October 2008 (EDT) PS: Out of curiosity, do you know the person I blocked?
Ok, I will keep that in mind should it happen again. It's hard to do much else except post from school, I don't have a personal computer yet (although I'm working on it) and I don't know for sure who it was, but by cross referencing sign in logs to the time I think I can get a fairly good idea. NateE Let Us Communicate 11:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Pearl Jam - removal of talk edit

Apologies may be in order. I think I may have removed that talk page contribution...our edits clahed and I must have somehow wiped yours during my amateurish attempts at saving my input. Sorry about that. AlanE 18:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I figured that's what happened. No biggie. (It was actuallyl Liams that you removed). HelpJazz 18:36, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I didn't mind, so I didn't change it :-) LiamG 18:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for defending me

Thanks for pointing out how others had mistaken comments I made. You are correct with what I said about lying in the Bible, and Peter is a perfect example. However, you and they are wrong to claim that I "cherry pick". My position has always been that you can determine whether something is meant to be taken literally by the context and knowledge of the language, as Professor James Barr (not a creationist) did (see creation week). And contrary to a claim made by someone of whom I'll have more to say in a moment (this is for their benefit) that creation week has no evidence, it in fact has (a) a number of supporting arguments about word use (admittedly unreferenced), (b) a referenced quote from an expert (Barr) who also says the other experts agree, and (c) a referenced summary of a formal study into the text. Perhaps he is simply seeing (or not seeing) what he wants to (not) see. Before I saw your comments, I was thinking of saying something anyway (such as on my user page). That same accuser (Kels) also accused me and Creation Ministries International of lying, ("he won't hesitate to lie and twist at the slightest opportunity" and "He accepts every lie creationontheweb feeds him") yet offered no evidence of that whatsoever. I accept that many people don't accept my views and think that I'm mistaken, deluded, or even stupid, but I don't go around saying things that I know to be untrue (and nor does CMI). Accusations like that without solid supporting evidence are nothing short of libel (not that I could be bothered suing), and he is despicable for making the accusation, and should be censured by others there, but by their silence they are just as bad. And they have the gall to criticise Conservapedia! Finally, to answer a loaded question, I accept both parts of the creation account, because I see no conflict between them (just like most of the rest of the millions who have studied the Bible for centuries) Philip J. Rayment 09:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Probably these others don't believe in censoring. Maybe you should go and explain your points of view to them at their place. I don't know what this Kels accused you of, but you can't deny that creationontheweb is your number one source of "information". Go and debate them there. Here, as you know, it is impossible. --JulianAdderley 09:52, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Since when it is censoring to take someone to task for libel? That CreationOnTheWeb is my main source was not the accusation. How do you not know what he accused me of when I've quoted it above?? I don't go there because I'd end up spending too much time disputing so much of what they say. I spend too much time disputing here without doing it there also. Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I talked about censoring as you yourself said "... and should be censured by others there". I find it unfair and cowardly that you attack them here instead of debating with them. They'd defend themselves here, but they are not allowed. --JulianAdderley 14:29, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
censure: to criticise adversely; disapprove; find fault with; condemn. That's not the same thing as censor. My reasons for not debating there have been given several times. I agree that the situation is unfortunate, but it's not out of cowardice that I don't debate there. Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, Philip, I didn't mean to imply that you cherry pick (though when I reread the post I was agreeing with, it does seem that that's what I agreed to!). What I meant to say was that you draw a different line than I do on what's literal and what's figurative in the Bible. I've seen you debating this a lot across the site and I know you don't use anything so silly as quote mining or cherry picking :) HelpJazz 16:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing that up. Philip J. Rayment 21:38, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


Funny Ema support Jesus as lord and supports Barack Obama because Christian principles are not Obama (gay marriage, abortion, black liberation theology, etc.). It is an oxymoron. How come you don't understand? --Jpatt 12:42, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Because not every Christian in the world believes the exact same thing? Obama is not the anti-Christ. Full disclosure: I'm probably going to vote for McCain, even though I don't really like him, simply to make it harder for Obama to win Ohio. I'm not an Obama fan by a long shot, but saying that no Christian Who Is A True Christian can vote for Obama gives Christianity a bad name. HelpJazz 12:46, 3 November 2008 (EST) PS: Is Obama a black liberation theologist or a Muslim? He can't be both.
My fellow Buckeye, it is evident that many Christians will vote for Obama, just by observing primary statistics. I am just saying Christians are confused about their faith if they vote Obama. So he is not the anti-Christ. His views are anti-Christian. If a true Christian votes cares for values and votes Obama, well then, they are giving Christianity a bad name.--Jpatt 12:51, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Jpatt, check worldwide statistics on support for the two candidates. They are pretty clear on which of the two candidates the majority of all the Christians in the world support. If you are too lazy to check by yourself, it's Obama. I find that a pretty convincing argument on who has more Christian values. --JennyM 12:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
What statistics? Not only have I seen no such statistics, I can't imagine that anybody is going to survey Christians worldwide to find out with of the two American presidential candidates they prefer. And Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by the values of the person that Christians would prefer to see as American president. Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Just google around, not difficult to find. Sorry to hear about your lack of imagination, Philip, as imagination is what keeps us young! Surely Christian values are defined by the Bible, not by Jpatt. Quite arrogant of Jpatt to "know" that McCain has more Christian values than Obama. Billions of Christians worldwide disagree. --Jessica 07:26, 4 November 2008 (EST)
If they're not difficult to find, why can't you link to them? And how many is "billions", given that there's about 2.1 billion Christians in total, and they wouldn't all prefer Obama. Philip J. Rayment 07:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
50 % of 2.1 billion is more than one billion. Since all the polls show more way more than 50 %, it's not difficult to infer the "billions". --Jessica 07:52, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Although a plural word indicates more than one, my understanding it that it is more than one unit ("billion" being the unit in this case), which doesn't allow for fractions, so "billions" means at least 2 billion. So where are these worldwide polls? Philip J. Rayment 08:00, 4 November 2008 (EST)
You are wrong on two counts. First of all, when approaching or surpassing 1.5, it is perfectly legitimate to use the plural. Second, "billions", as well as "dozens" or "tens", is a perfectly acceptable way to convey order of magnitude. For the polls you'll have to look by yourself. I have no time now. But do you really doubt it? --Jessica 08:11, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I do doubt that such surveys exist. Philip J. Rayment 04:28, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Philip's a busy guy, but I'm notoriously bored, so I went and looked. I found plenty of surveys that showed Obama winning international popularity contests, but none of them claimed to select only Christians.
To the larger point of it being possible for Christians to select Obama - of course it's possible. I did it, for one. (Sorry, HelpJazz.) Aziraphale 10:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I can't be your online friend anymore! ;-) It's ok, in a way I wanted Obama to win. I truely believe that once the hype wore off, either candidate would have been a pretty lame duck president. If McCain won, they would just blame it on Bush, and then a candidate who's even more liberal than Obama would be elected in '12. If Obama won, then when he is (ok this tense is all messed up now, bear with me here) not the Messiah that he's supposed to be I can laugh and feel morally superior and smug and all those cool things I like to do :) HelpJazz 12:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Yeah, he doesn't match my politics in a lot of ways, but neither does the 2008 version of McCain, and Bob Barr was a carpet-bagger of a Libertarian and I refuse to endorse that. Boiled down to the fact that I felt a McCain vote is an endorsement of the current administration, for all the lip service he pays to "change."
You might enjoy checking out this blog I found by a guy who posts on Ames' blog comments. He's a fairly articulate guy who doesn't get all riled up (in other words, don't hold Ames against him) (although Ames is plenty articulate, he just gets caught up in things...). Aziraphale 13:02, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Grrr lost a post. Ok this is the last thing I say and then I'll be done for a while because this faulty connection thing is annoying. I didn't like any of the candidates this year, and as much as I hated myself for doing it, I had to vote against a candidate instead of for a candidate. I almost considered writing in Ron Paul just for the heck of it. *Off to read that blog link, which probably has a much better connection than this site does right now* HelpJazz 13:14, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Oh if the world wants Obama, then I should shut up, duh. It is convincing who has more Christian values. Hint, it aint Obama.--Jpatt 13:01, 3 November 2008 (EST)
And again I say you are trying to impose one set of beliefs on all Christians, and you are questioning the faith of those who believe differently than you. Not everybody is a one or two issue voter, you know. HelpJazz 13:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)
PS: Since you brought up same sex marriage, both Obama and Biden oppose it [1]. And you didn't mention stem cell research: McCain supports federal funding of it [2]. HelpJazz 13:54, 3 November 2008 (EST)
"McCain supports federal funding of ... Obama"??? Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Whoops! Fixed. HelpJazz 20:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Oh. I thought you might have meant "and Obama does also". And to clarify, nobody has any objection to funding stem cell research. Or are you saying that McCain supports funding embryonic stem cell research? In any case, I expect that it's a case not of claiming that McCain is correct in all his views, but that they are, overall, better than Obama's. Philip J. Rayment 21:14, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I did mean embryonic. To be fair, he only wants funding on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway -- I don't know if pro-lifers are ok with that. If I understand Jpatt's argument, he was trying to argue that no Christians can vote for Obama because he doesn't hold Christian values. Not only that, but he presented it as the only correct choice and anyone with a differing opinion doesn't have enough faith. I was trying to point out that Jesus is not running for president. HelpJazz 21:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Write-ins FTW!! Aziraphale 22:26, 3 November 2008 (EST) <-Jesus/Holy Ghost '08!
Was it okay to experiment on the Jews who were going to the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because they were going to die anyway?
I tend to agree that Americans tie their religion too closely to their politics, but on the other hand, I can understand where he's probably coming from (although I should point out that I don't know what prompted the first post in this section). A Christian believes that God is the ultimate reality, and therefore that God's standards are more important than anything else more worldly. Therefore, in comparing two different candidates, the one that most closely follows God's standards is the one that Christians should vote for. That is, God's standards (such as on moral issues) are not just a minor consideration, but should be a major deciding factor. To that extent, I would agree with Jpatt. Philip J. Rayment 23:38, 3 November 2008 (EST)
What you missed was the conversaion on (the now blocked) user:Ema's talk page. She said something about how Obama was going to win, to which Jpatt replied: "Funny how you accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and support Barack Obama." I don't think there's anything wrong to use your faith as a factor in deciding who to vote for, but to presume that ones (clearly at least partially incorrect, as seen by the gay marriage comment on this page) interpretation is infallible is hubris at its best. HelpJazz 23:48, 3 November 2008 (EST)

My vacation

Hey! It's good to be back. :-) --Ed Poor Talk 13:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Now get to work *wchapshh!* HelpJazz 13:45, 3 November 2008 (EST)

That has a nice beat to it . . . --Ed Poor Talk 13:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)


My apologies for bothering you with this.... But is this user for real? Or is he a parodist? If he is real, he is a very difficult person to work with. He is currently edit warring on the Rodney King page and is generally making things difficult for other users? Is there anything we can do? I think this this edit sums up everything. SamuelA 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)

To engage in an edit war while insisting "don't edit war" is parody at its worst.
I contribute here by editing articles to add information, sometimes in the form of sentences and paragraphs. I suggest you do the same.
In the meantime, I will try to be more like the Christ. He was very forgiving. BHarlan 18:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
If that doesn't clear things up for you, nothing will. There is nothing you can do about it. LiamG 18:23, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I try not to comment on the nature of parodists, unless I am blocking someone for it. It's too messy otherwise. However, BHarlan, I would ask that you be a little nicer. Legitimate editors can be blocked for not working well with others. HelpJazz 18:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Template thanks

Thanks for your work on {{homosexualityb}} - it will be much easier to edit now. Just wanted to let you know that these things don't go unnoticed.--CPalmer 07:03, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks. All I really did was add a line break in between each thing, since I have a hard time reading all those links squished together. A single line break won't show up in the end result, but it makes the code a little easier to look at.
You should be the one being thanked though. None of your work goes unnoticed, but I'm willing to wager that most of it is thankless. Until now!! HelpJazz 12:26, 14 November 2008 (EST)
I wouldn't say thankless - just yesterday Ed Poor was if anything over-generous. Congratulations on the message below, by the way.--CPalmer 13:34, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop rights

Er, I meant that you've been nominated in our secret enclave to become a sysop. Until then, all you edits show up for me in Recent Changes with a red mark. When you become a sysop, we don't have to patrol your changes any more. I think Jessica and Bert should be sysops. No one ever reverts them. --Ed Poor Talk 13:08, 14 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sure I've been nominated more than once... I'll believe it when I see it though ;-)
About those red exlamation points: I've seen them before (not here, obviously). It makes me wonder what Wikimedia was thinking (or was it Wikipedia? Which came first?) -- do they seriously expect every single edit by a non-sysop to be marked as patrolled? HelpJazz 14:32, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, there is a reason why secret enclaves are secret. It is very unclear right now what direction Andy wishes to go and we should avoid any indication to our valued editors of what the future may hold that may not in fact be fulfilled. It can only cause possible embitterment or disenchantment and we certainly don't want that among any of the people who have made great contributions to our project. Learn together 15:35, 14 November 2008 (EST)
No worries, LT. I haven't gotten my hopes up, and my feelings won't be hurt. HelpJazz 15:42, 14 November 2008 (EST)

Lest I trip over my beard, I must remind myself that Wikipedia was only two years old when the patrol feature was created. The rate of edits was so low that one sysop could do all the patrolling by himself. --Ed Poor Talk 16:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)


You were blocked for this edit. HenryS 20:53, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Oops, my mistake. I have been away for a while, would you please sum up the events that have occured during my absence? Thanks. HenryS 20:57, 15 November 2008 (EST)
May I unblock him so he can answer? Blocked users cannot edit their own user talk pages here - although (thanks to me!) they can do so at Wikipedia. --Ed Poor Talk 20:59, 15 November 2008 (EST)
(Sorry Ed, I didn't know if anyone else was watching. PS: is there an easier way to unblock an IP address? I can't seem to figure out how to do it).
Henry, much has gone on since you went on vacation. I saw it all, but I'm not sure I can explain it all myself. HelpJazz 21:01, 15 November 2008 (EST)

HJ, I am sorry that I blocked you. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. HenryS 21:09, 15 November 2008 (EST)

It's ok, you picked a bad time to make a joke, is all. HelpJazz 21:10, 15 November 2008 (EST) <-- NOONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!!! (There's never a bad time for that joke!)
Did someone mention an Inquisition? Oh goody! (rubbing hands in glee!) --₮K/Talk 21:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Our chief weapon is surprise! --Ed Poor Talk 21:14, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I say we start a conservapedia inquisition. HenryS 21:21, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Depends on who gets inquisitioned. Inquisized? Inquised? HelpJazz 21:33, 15 November 2008 (EST)
It is always THEM, Jazz! We go after THEM!!! --₮K/Talk 21:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I stopped playing with blocks when I was six.AlanE 22:02, 15 November 2008 (EST)
It is so noted. --₮K/Talk 22:22, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Not a single block! That's impressive and unexpected. HelpJazz 22:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
  • Well I am fairly certain that won't last. --₮K/Talk 00:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)


  • "I don't know why I bother, i'm sure some crackpot out there has said this" [3]

A moment of candor. It's nice to know what you think of the sources we draw upon. I can tell you at least one person who said that: the person who wrote the article. Now think about whether you meant what you wrote. -Foxtrot 07:44, 16 November 2008 (EST)

My point being that even though "gay heroism" is likely not part of a campaign to legitimize homosexuality, you can find a source that says anything, and there's really no standard for sources on this webite. I didn't mean that you had to be a crackpot to believe it, but I'm willing to wager that you won't find a mainstream source to back up that statement (yeah, yeah liberal bias). I wasn't calling Ed Poor a crackpot, since an editor's opinion can't be used as a source (a policy Ed himself helped to write), but yes, I still mean what I wrote. HelpJazz 12:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sillly edit

You are being silly but I will let it stand.--Jpatt 14:47, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe I would have been in a nicer mood had you asked first, but now there's really no way to know, is there? You probably blocked their IP's anyway, which I'm guessing is why you are taking the "high road" now. HelpJazz 14:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Your block

Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here. Bugler 15:05, 16 November 2008 (EST)