Difference between revisions of "User talk:DanH"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Vandal attacks)
(Vandal attacks: suspicious behavior!)
Line 166: Line 166:
:I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5]].  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5]].  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I tell ya, what makes ''me'' suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up.  They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! [[User:Human|Human]] 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:08, 29 April 2007

Archive: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew

Much Better

Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine? Rob Pommertalk


Cut what out exactly?

I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. Wattylfc 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Big edits

Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? GodlessLiberal 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. GodlessLiberal 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --Thammersmith 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the revert! Crocoite Talk 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Main Page

i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.Bohdan 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?

will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)


The new article Lazarus (Parable) is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to (Lazarus).

Could you please do it?

--Joaquín Martínez 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you!
--Joaquín Martínez 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Good luck

with that paper. --Hojimachongtalk 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --Thammersmith 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Please vote for me

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship Conservative 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? Human 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


Question for you on the Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship page. Jrssr5 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Nevermind ... saw your reason. Jrssr5 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


Nananana Batman!

  • 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --Ed Poor 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--Aschlafly 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Dan

I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

New Age

What was wrong with my edits to New Age that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. DrSandstone 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


I understood.--Kádár Tamás 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Beaver ?

"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my Beaver article is entirely factual.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [1]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about Beavers it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --Jeremiah4-22 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Just wondering

What could I do to gain your trust? Flippin 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT) Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. Flippin 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --Hojimachongtalk 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--JoyousOne 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)


I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using Edit Warring as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [2] and I want to make a record I support it. RobS 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I screwed up, as a guideline this reads 3 hours to one week after the warning. RobS 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


No problem. Thanks for blocking him. Murray 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --Hojimachongtalk 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
This guy really needs to get a life. My annoyance with him is negated by my laughs over his pathetic hobby. --Hojimachongtalk 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No joke. Doesn't he have anything better to do on a Sunday? DanH 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Polap Srewdna

he didn't edit, why the block?

You can talk to me directly

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. Tmtoulouse 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. Tmtoulouse 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. Tmtoulouse 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Toulouse would've told me if there was a conspiracy. I feel left out of there is one that he's hiding from me.-AmesGyo! 20:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I was too quick to judge and I apologize again for it. DanH 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Page Delete Request

Could you please delete a page for me. I'm an idiot and was working while watching tv. I accidentally mistyped the page I wanted as "Deviance Behaviour" instead of "Deviant Behaviour". I can't figure out how to undo it, so it must mean I can't. Thanks --TrueGrit 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)


I see you're still having trouble with Icewedge. His post on Bohdan's userpage looks like they're working together. Do you think a block of Bohdan is necessary? Reaganomist 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i have no involvment with himBohdan

Simpsons are really liberal

Homer punched out George Bush and called president Bush Commander Kookoobananas. Not to mention that he supported Republican parodys Mr. Burns as governor and sideshow Bob. Somebody should show how liberal they really are!!!

I think the Simpsons speaks for itself. If one can't pick up on the undertones by themselves, then they are an idiot.--Elamdri 17:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Leftists strike again. Are you going to accuse me of being "inbred" and living in a "trailer" for your next act?--ILikeCookies 17:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't making fun of you. I just think that going around telling people the Simpsons carries a liberal message is a redundant act. Most people who watch the Simpsons already know that it carries said message, and if they don't they're either burying their heads in the sand, or they really are just ignorant.--Elamdri 17:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
The Simpsons are satire, especially early seasons. They make fun of everybody. DanH 17:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Vandal attacks

Conservative must resign as a sysop before there is any chance of the vandal attacks ending. Davros 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5. RobS 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --AKjeldsen 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I tell ya, what makes me suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up. They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! Human 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)