Difference between revisions of "User talk:EJamesW"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(re: A recent article of yours)
(re: A recent article of yours)
Line 109: Line 109:
::::I know it and you know this. But feel free to expand the article in a significant way and prove me wrong. Should you expand the article, feel free to link to it from the [[profanity]] and [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Atheism and musical–rhythmic intelligence and artistic intelligence]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:59, 24 January 2015 (EST)
::::I know it and you know this. But feel free to expand the article in a significant way and prove me wrong. Should you expand the article, feel free to link to it from the [[profanity]] and [[Atheism and profanity]] and [[Atheism and musical–rhythmic intelligence and artistic intelligence]] articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:59, 24 January 2015 (EST)
I had no idea this would upset you (or your [[collective]]) so much. I've added internal links to article but delete it if you want... [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:30, 24 January 2015 (EST)

Revision as of 16:30, 24 January 2015

Useful links


Hello, EJamesW, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, EJamesW!

Joaquín Martínez 16:14, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Hi James ta!! Alexis 22:14, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Oi hey nobody answered my question how can i help and is there nething I can do?? Alexis 22:20, 25 February 2012 (EST)

My sincere apologies

I meant to block KoyogaBekijo but hit your name by mistake. Please accept my apology. Davidspencer 16:19, 16 March 2012 (EDT)

Blocking authority

Your account has been promoted to blocking authority. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

Got your message in my talk page message area

I got your message in my talk page message area. Thanks. Conservative 10:14, 26 June 2012 (EDT)


Great blocking. Please note, however, that a new user cannot create a second new account if the two boxes are not unchecked when blocking that user. Please observe the difference in messages between the block I just did (when I unchecked the boxes) and the blocks you did.

No big deal today - some of the users you blocked may not have created a legitimate second account anyway.--Andy Schlafly 15:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

examine this

Examine this: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Prove_creationism_is_true Conservative 03:32, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Proof Creationism! is true

Here is evidence that Christianity/creationism is true: Christianity and creationism is true.

Second, have you noticed this and this yet? Are the seedlings of a Creationism Proven! campaign already planted? Conservative 03:12, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

Bravo, good sir :)

Congratulations on your having somehow not only survived here for several months as a professed atheist and liberal, but on also gaining and judiciously applying your block rights. :) I wish some of the Wikias I've contributed to in the past had sysops with similarly-reasonable personalities. I may not agree with you religiously, but you seem to be a good person so more power to you. JGrant 13:14, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

debate challenge

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions ) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua Conservative 09:09, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Hello user:conservative! Thankyou very much for inviting me to a debate but I really can't see what point that would serve. Winning or losing an argument which would invariably end up about semantics is not going to change reality.
I realise that accepting evolution as the reason why life exists is going to be a difficult truth about existence that goes against everything that you've chosen (or been indoctrinated) to believe.
I think you should lay off the incessant 'Question Evolution!' proclamations on the main page. To be honest with you they're starting to take on a desperate and pathetic quality to them and you're only attracting ridicule and mockery from Atheists, and exasperation from fellow Christians . Who, exactly, is this campaign aimed at? I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would be swayed by such trite and disingenuous arguments. Or is this campaign only aimed at 'thick' people?
I would particularly advise you against linking to such 'news' items that proclaim a person is going to read a book (350+ pages long!) but then couldn't because of a cold so the incredible announcement that is going to destroy evolution is going to be delayed until the 15th October... This sounds like a cruel 'Monty Python' sketch.
I hope this incredible upcoming announcement is going radically change the scientific world or all your posts have been a complete and utter waste of time!
As always best wishes to you and your family EJamesW 17:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
p.s. as you have declined to have a talk page , I think it's only fair that a copy of this conservation is posted on the talk page of the main page.

Well done user:conseravtive! - You actually took my advice. We'll speak of the 'Question evolution! campaign' no more. EJamesW 17:22, 12 January 2015 (EST)

You wrote on your user page: "I'm atheist, liberal and think evolution is the best explanation for the appearance of life on Earth. But I'm interested to listen to other explanations."
Yet, when I write encyclopedia articles on atheism at an online encyclopedia (Imagine that!), you get upset and ask why I am writing them. Muslims, scientologists and atheists have fragile worldviews and get easily upset. I have never gone to Liberalpedia and asked them why they are writing articles on liberalism. It doesn't upset me when they do this. Conservative 18:26, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Nether the less - You did the did the right thing in dropping your 'sponsorship' of the 'Question! Evolution campaign'. You (or you collective) have followed the sensible path when you adhered to my advice. EJamesW 18:36, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Did you really need to block me?

Admittedly the language was a bit purple, but i feel my point was valid. Seems a bit tasteless to be so merry at the implementation of a law that will execute people for what they do in the bedroom.

Block revert

Not that I'm arguing, but how do you determine that a user who hasn't made an edit is a sock puppet when you don't have checkuser rights? (Would've sent this in a n email but you don't have that enabled). Just want to make sure that you're sure. --IDuan 13:36, 22 November 2012 (EST)

Welcome back....

...and, as an Australian, may I congratulate England for its wonderful showing at the Commonwealth Games. AlanE 23:54, 3 August 2014 (EDT)

Dear EJamesW: I see that you monitor the Recent Changes and make minor corrections as necessary (haunting->hounding). I do too, and I thought that was what people are supposed to do when editing a wiki. We are now at the point where that activity will become grounds for being blocked. Thanks, Wschact 15:21, 12 January 2015 (EST)

British Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW Changing My Essay Title by Removing the Word Liberal

British liberal evolutionist User:EJamesW should not be doggedly hounding trolling / liberal bullying by deliberately changing the title of my essay (Essay:France Pays Dearly - Liberal Gun Control Laws and Gun Free Zones that Welcome Terrorists) in the Essay page to remove the word liberal from the title. I guess he doesn't think that gun control, ammunition control and gun free zones were created by the progressive police state. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AEssays&action=historysubmit&diff=1131378&oldid=1131374 and Talk:Essay:France_Pays_Dearly_-_Liberal_Gun_Control_Laws_and_Gun_Free_Zones_that_Welcome_Terrorists#Show_some_machismo.21

TheAmericanRedoubt 11:49, 18 January 2015 (EST)

More Troll Edits from British Atheist Liberal Evolutionist User:EJamesW

Again self-identified British atheist liberal editor EJamesW, under the guise of "improving things", does more troll edits. See Talk:Nuclear_target_structures#User:EJamesW_Removing_References_and_Deleting_Majors_Sections_Unnecessarily_While_Adding_Just_1_Sentence TheAmericanRedoubt 18:58, 19 January 2015 (EST)

By the way, nice 1 sentence uncategorized stubs Mr. EJamesW created (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/EJamesW): Swiss_Miss, Sovereign_state, Bobby Charlton. Perhaps when EJamesW's liberal friend User:Wschact comes back from the "cooler" he would give EJamesW some extensive long winded explanations via the Community Portal, his User Page and each stub article's Talk Pages about not creating 1 sentence stubs. TheAmericanRedoubt 19:06, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015

See: Essay: Biblical creationism will be strong in 2015.

Stronger, higher, faster! Conservative 19:46, 17 January 2015 (EST)

re: A recent article of yours

For the article Preaching to the choir you neglected to use category articles. In addition, you didn't appear to link to the article on any other page. This virtually guarantees that the article will be an orphan article.

If memory serves, and it may not, this is not the only time you have done this.

Furthermore, please avoid writing stub articles. People don't like stub articles. And if you do write a short article, at least have an external link section so people can explore the subject further. Conservative 16:17, 24 January 2015 (EST)

In light of my previous comment, if you don't expand the article In bad taste and link to it from another article, I will delete it. I would suggest linking to it from our profanity and Atheism and profanity articles if you choose to expand it. Conservative 16:23, 24 January 2015 (EST)
Are you saying that any article created on this site must have a link to another article or it will be deleted? EJamesW 16:35, 24 January 2015 (EST)
If you don't make a good faith effort to expand the article and then link to it from other articles, I will delete it. The article was not a good faith article, but merely was a sour grapes article because I exposed the misdeeds/sins/ugliness/tackiness of atheistic societies/subcultures.
I know it and you know this. But feel free to expand the article in a significant way and prove me wrong. Should you expand the article, feel free to link to it from the profanity and Atheism and profanity and Atheism and musical–rhythmic intelligence and artistic intelligence articles. Conservative 16:59, 24 January 2015 (EST)

I had no idea this would upset you (or your collective) so much. I've added internal links to article but delete it if you want... EJamesW 17:30, 24 January 2015 (EST)