User talk:HelpJazz

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aziraphale (Talk | contribs) at 19:53, November 18, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
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)

You really make me laugh, you know? Bugler has no right to undo my blocks. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave? Bugler 15:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
C'mon, HelpJazz. C'mon, man. Tell me. Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Heh? have you? Have you never reverted an edit of mine? Bugler 15:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
(Edit conflict: Bugler's original comment was: "Now try and stay civilised about this and discuss it here.") I did discuss it. Jpatt has no right to undo my blocks; you have no right to undo my blocks. You then blocked me (and blocked my IP address for no reason other than to be annoying) with no legitimate reason. Blocking doesn't work if any other editor can decide to change another's blocks. Believe me, Bugler, be happy I respect this simple principle. If you think I complain a lot now, how do you think you'd like it if I simply undid every block you did that I didn't think was appropriate? Now, a sysop has the power (and the right) to correct a block I made erroneously; a sysop's decisions take precidence over mine. Any other non-sysop has no greater authority over me. If they were to ask, I might reconsider. I've made mistakes in the past. But simply ignoring normal modes of respect is unacceptable. If you undo any of my blocks (ever) I will redo them, and I expect you would do the same.
Edit conflict (Bugler's *new* comment, I suspect he's intentionally edit conflicting me, is "You really make me laugh, you know? Bugler has no right to undo my blocks. What on earth have you been doing in the past months, trying to worry me to an early grave?"): Which blocks of yours did I undo, except the ones where you blocked me? Name one and I'll quit this site.
Edit conflict *again*: First of all, edits are fundamentally different than blocks. It's clear that if you were to insert a spelling error, there is no conflict in me fixing it. Every editor on this site is given the "responsiblity" of editing. However, in getting "block" rights, Andy has decided that he trusts your judgment enough that you are given the "privilede" to excercise your good judement by blocking people. In undoing a block you are telling both me and Andy that your judgement is better than ours.
Even though it is irrelevant (as I have shown) I can still answer your question: Have I ever undone an edit you have done? Yes I have. Have I ever undone an edit you have done while giving no explanation or reason? No, I don't think I have. HelpJazz 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)

You have certainly never given an adequate explanation. however, I am able to let the dead bury the dead. WEhat matters, as I am trying to get across to you, is the welfare of Conservapedia. I think your lenient 'name only' blocks of the two hangmen are entirely wrong for two key reasons. 1. The insults were so gross that the perpetrators do not deserve a second chance. 2. The insults, being so gross, indicate that teh perpetratorsm, if allowed back into CP, as you are in effect doing, have the potential to cause huge damage through vandalism, causing editors here an enormous amount of clean-up work.

I hope you will accept that I have not deliberately tried to edit conflict you; that is not my style. I say what I think, to you and to others. And the block was not intended to block you: I knew you would revert it post-haste. It was to get a breathing space to remove damaging saboteurs from the site. Saboteurs who you have since restored to grace. Bugler 15:31, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I cannot remember whether you have reverted any of my blocks. Given what you say, I presume you disapprove of Tim's high handed action yesterday (and before, regarding Daphnea), and PJR's similar actions towards me in the past. For the rceord, Jpatt is one of the best new editors and sysop-lites we have here. He should be encouraged and cherished, not subjected to beastings. Bugler 15:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
(It again took you three edits to say what you think; if you instead use the preview button, you don't run the risk of edit conflicted other users multiple times)
For starters, how did I not adequately explain why it was wrong for Jpatt to undo my block? You gave no explanation.
Secondly, if you think my blocks are lenient, there's nothing stopping you from asking me about it. There is way too much overeager blocking on this site; shame on me if I follow the letter of the law. That gives no excuse for someone else to change it without asking me. (You will notice that they never recreated their account).
Thirdly, I can tell you that I have never undone any other editor's blocks, unless the blocks were obvious vandalism (Like MexMax) or if they were joking (like Bohdan last night).
Fourthly, if you read what I wrote, I clearly said that I have no problem with a sysop going over the head of a normal editor. You and I are both editors, and Tim and PJR are both sysops. I don't know about Daphnea, but seeing as how you didn't undo a single one of HotDog's edits, you didn't really have a case there anyway, did you? I'd also be surprised if PJR undid a block without any explanation, but again, as a sysop it's entirely within his rights.
Lastly, I have no responsibility to encourage or cherish someone for doing something they had no right to do. Had Jpatt asked me, I would have said "Thank you for asking Jpatt, here's my explanation." He showed no respect for me, and I had no obligation to give him any in return. HelpJazz 15:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
1. Sysop rights have no merit whatsoever when they are abused, as I believe they were yesterday. 2. So what is your justification for giving the hangmen free rein in Conservapedia? Bugler 15:48, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Hey people, don't fight. You are both good and valuable contributors. If you have to revert someone (but pleease don't block), revert my contributions: they are not as valuable as yours. Please, both of you, advance our common cause by being unite against our enemies! --Drunk 15:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Thank you, Drunk. I would however appreciate an acknowledgement from HelpJazz that I don't deliberately time my edits to disrup him with edit conflicts. t sounds a strange thing, and a very difficult one, to do in any case. I frequently gnash my teeth over ECs, but I don't for a moment imagine that enemies are doing it deliberately to frustrate me. Bugler 15:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I don't have much wiki experience, but to time edits to disrupt with edit conflicts seems very far-fetched even in my "high" (sorry) state. There are much more effective ways to disrupt. But HelpJazz, why do you think that Bugler is disrupting? Maybe it's just an incomprehension between you? --Drunk 16:00, 16 November 2008 (EST)
(Ironically, an edit conflict) 1. Then there's really no point in having sysops, is there? As much as you whine about the "liberal whinging about every decisions", do you really want to assert that every time someone thinks another user is abusing their power, that person has no obligation to sumbit to the abuser's power? Or are you the only one who gets to decide when someone is abusing power?
2. Free reign? Hardly. Had I wanted to give them free reign I would have unblocked them. Instead, I gave them the opportunity to rethink their actions and either go away, or come back in a better frame of mind. What's the worse that could have happened? Had they created another inappropriate username, I would have blocked them with account creation disabled (and yes, I have done this before); had they created an account and started vandalising I would have blocked their account with account creation disabled; had they never returned there's no harm to CP; had they returned and been a good editor then CP is all the better. I refuse to block people for something they might do. )This is not to say that I will contest any user who blocks people this way).
Ironic edit conflict: I'll admit that the first time may not have been intentional. It's very strange for someone to make three edits in a row, when they know that all three warrant a response, but the evidence is not conclusive enough to say that you did it on purpose. (I also misread the diffs and thought you were replacing your text, which lead more evidence to my claim). However, doing the exact same thing after I already pointed it out is a bit suspicious, no? That's why, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I instructed you to use the "show preview" button, which is the surefire way to avoid edit conflicts. HelpJazz 16:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)

You got blocked again?! Ouch. HenryS 16:12, 16 November 2008 (EST)

You instructed me? My, oh my! I thought that editors had no authority over editors, but now I am expected to comply with the instructions of HelpJazz! Have you been appointed Lord High Panjandrum while I have been away? If so, please instruct me on the correct protocol. Is it a bow from the waist, or a full kow-tow? Do I have to walk backwards when I depart the August HelpJazzian Presence? My Lord will please excuse his humble servant's ignorance of etiquette! Bugler 18:06, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Bugler, please cool it, or I'll have to send an email to Andy. --Ed Poor Talk 18:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Well, honestly! Bugler 18:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Instruct (v.): to give knowledge to. Yes, that's what I did. I didn't say "commanded" or "required" or "demanded" or "forced" or "insisted". Alternatively, I could have said "taught" or "advised" or "showed" or "informed". HelpJazz 18:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Perhaps this is a cultural difference. In the UK, instruct means order, tell. 'Advise' might have been the polite option. Bugler 18:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Category Discussion...

I have somehow missed the discussion about changing Categories from Liberals to Liberalism. Can you direct me, and possibly Ed Poor to it? --₮K/Talk 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to discuss my use of common sense. Can you direct me to the rule that says this please? HelpJazz 19:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Are you quite certain you want to have this show-down? What exactly will you gain or lose? --₮K/Talk 19:54, 16 November 2008 (EST)
What showdown? Is there such a page? If not, I'm going to continue using my common sense. "Liberals" are people; "liberalism" is an idea. An idea is not a person and a person is not an idea. (And a person and an idea are not an organization). What's to discuss?
Just because you are back, it doesn't mean you can boss me around again, TK. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way anymore. You won on {{liberalism}}, what more do you want? HelpJazz 19:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Boss you? Are you in 2nd grade, or what? --₮K/Talk 19:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I take it you don't have an answer to any of my question then? In that case, I'll continue what I'm doing. HelpJazz 19:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)

My "suggestion" was given hours ago, to simply change the Cat name from Liberals to Liberal. I have spoken to Ed, and he can (and will)do what you are doing with his bot. If you wish to desist from your grand show of huffiness, you could simply wait until tomorrow or Tuesday, for Ed to run his bot. I question the need to create yet another category, when the template could be edited to add whatever page it is applied to the category "liberal". --₮K/Talk 20:14, 16 November 2008 (EST)

L. Beryl Baez is a person? [4] I didn't understand your edit comment. --Ed Poor Talk 20:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Oh, wait: I misread it. "liberal bias is a concept, not a person" --Ed Poor Talk 20:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Wait, his bot is going to add everything from the "liberals" "liberalism" and "liberal organizations" categories and dump them all together into a "liberal" category? Why? Aren't categories supposed to be nouns? HelpJazz 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Homosexual Agenda is under the subcategory Category:Liberal Deceit. Evolution isn't under any of the liberal categories at all. It doesn't usually make sense to put everything on a template into the same category. It makes category renames easier, but everything else harder, and category renames don't happen that often. --Interiot 20:26, 16 November 2008 (EST)
(EC) Ed, "liberal bias in acedemia", which is the title of the article, is not a person. There might be people mentioned in the article, but do you seriously want to put every single article that so much as mentions a liberal into the "liberals" category? That would mean that, for example, John McCain would be in the liberals category. (EC -- this is happening a lot today. Maybe I should increase my typing speed) I think you understand where I'm coming from now. HelpJazz 20:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
You and Interiot are indeed "understood". I merely suggested one way to quickly add articles to a category, was not suggesting that would be the ONLY category applied. To me it was far easier to change the category "Liberals" to Liberal, no plural. The "discussion-without-end" over this is everything that is wrong about Conservapedia, and in my opinion, by design and spite. However, if people want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, in spite, go ahead. --₮K/Talk 20:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Easier isn't always best. It might be "easier" to just put everything in the "liberal" category but (a) it goes against the category conventions and (b) it's not very descriptive.
I don't see who's running around with a chicken with it's head cut off, either. All I was doing was putting articles into the most logical, pre-existing category. HelpJazz 20:36, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, after you publicly got angry over it, insisting you were being "bossed". Do whatever you wish, of course. You and a few others insisted you were correct over something that was decided by admins months and months ago, and you don't care. I will no longer participate in this silly arguing on your part, Jazz. It is pointless, and nothing is urgent about this. --₮K/Talk 20:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Can you point to me where admins decided how the template should be used? Maybe I just missed it; all this mess will be cleared up rather quickly. The only thing I can find is where a group of people (including a sysop) decided how it was to be used, and then you unilaterally decided not to use it that way. So when I did what you wanted and started adding the template how you wanted to, somehow I can't do it right and I need permission to use common sense. Can you just tell me what to do already and get it over with? All this time I'm spending on my talk page I could be using to impliment the template you wanted to use. So please, direct me to the admin decision that was made months ago, so that I may submit myself to it and continue editing this encyclopedia. HelpJazz 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Sysop discussions are not done that way, you know that, and you have absolutely no right to insist they should be. I asked Brianco to create it. I got Andy's permission, and that is that. No one, least of all me, said you were adding it incorrectly. What I do know is you got me on AIM highly agitated and upset I was using it. That is what I know. My only dispute was your public snit, and insistence about changing categories, and impatience that you were not answered IMEDIATELY, and posting that you were just going to proceed. I have the IM archive, from months ago, when you were informed about the template. And even that doesn't matter. You alone have decided you don't like the template. So, take it off, if you like. We will just make a new template, and not call it a nav box, thus removing your original complaint that it was being used for a purpose not intended for nav boxes. --₮K/Talk 21:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In other words, I have to take your word for it that any discussion took place?
"You and you alone?" What about the other people who responded on the talk page? HelpJazz 21:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, that's pretty much it, Jazz. We assume good faith. That is the Christian way. If I say it was that way, it was. If it is untrue, Andy can post saying I am mistaken or a liar. This is something, a Red Herring, you decided to dredge up and dispute, from months ago! It was only after I was no longer a sysop, that some people, including you, thought that meant some kind of wholesale reversal of policy could be made. That is indeed fuzzy logic. --₮K/Talk 21:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Then let's have Andy post. You are using something I've never seen in order to control my actions.
I dredged it up? Really? Funny, nobody discussed the liberalism template until you came back and started doing the exact same thing you were doing when you left.
Wholesale reversal of policy? The policy was "TK is right; you must have permission from TK to do anything; TK has discussed everything through email with Andy". When TK is gone, the policy breaks down. Now you are back, you have no idea what has gone on in the last 7 months, and you just assume that everything is as it was. HelpJazz 22:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Speaking of what has gone on, could you sum it up tonight? Please? You refused to last night :( HenryS 22:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
When did you go on vacation? How long have you been gone? HelpJazz 22:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
About a month or two. When I was last here, you and another user were engaged in bitter dispute over "big science" or something like that. Is this Buglre a sysop? Are you? HenryS 22:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I don't think there have been any promotions in the last month or two. I'll never be promoted, so that's not something you ever have to ask ;-)
Hrm... what have you missed in the last few months? Ed and TK came back (which I'm sure you can tell).
Multiple fights have ensued, people have been called idiots, noone's been blocked -- not much has changed. (Big science got moved to the essay space though). Read over my talk page, Bugler's talk page, PJR's talk page and the Obama talk page, (Maybe Ed's talk page too) and that pretty much sums up everything you need to know over the last couple months. HelpJazz 22:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Were you called an idiot? HenryS 22:29, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Not me, but Tim was (check out Bugler's talk page, I think).
I just checked my spam email (all my CP mail goes straight to spam) and found emails from two different editors asking me to intercede with their blocks by the same user. HelpJazz 22:33, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Straight to spam? I have been sending you emails everyday for the past two months. HenryS 22:35, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Straight to spam. Curiously, I haven't seen any emails from teh Bohdan. HelpJazz 22:40, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Has anyone called me an idiot? HenryS 22:42, 16 November 2008 (EST)
Doubtful. Who could call you an idiot and expect to get away with it? I mean *seriously*! HelpJazz 22:46, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I haven't been here in seven months. What I see is that the exact same arguments are still going on, were going on, without my presence. So that pretty much puts to bed the unscrupulous and false remarks that somehow those arguments revolved around me, were my fault.

What I do know, it was the owners instructions, past and present, that there be none of this endless argument. People editing here will do so from the conservative point of view of be invited out. Wikipedia more than covers it for liberals and Internationalists, and those who value such need to stick to that place.

Jazz, you are a particular disappointment, in your total lack of honesty. While we debated and even argued at times, you never expressed such enmity to me, such dislike, and when you questioned me, I always invited you to check directly with Andy. It is particularly childish to argue over what my intentions were regarding a template I asked to be created, discussed with the owner and other sysops. Do you flatter yourself so much as to think that one of the few sysops (me) who went out on a limb for you, requesting night editing, blocking, and even to have you made a sysop, that I am for some reason making it up about why it was created? And my advantage in so doing would be?

By your less than kind, throw-away comments, like the "I'm sure you can tell..." above, you show yourself to be just another mean & hateful person. Just goes to show how wrong I was about you, your character, and your being good material for an admin. BTW, Ed Poor was another who put himself out there, promoting you for sysop to Andy. I have always been honest with you, always told you CP wasn't like Wikipedia, and that the owner didn't aspire to it under any circumstances. Given your actions in the past 24 hours, I know Andy was correct in holding back. I was wrong, he was right. --₮K/Talk 22:55, 16 November 2008 (EST)

TK, you started all of the arguments. Want to know how many arguments there were about the use of the liberalism template while you were gone? None. Want to know how many arguments there were about categories when you were gone? None. Formatting? None. The liberalness of Fred Phelps? None. But then within 24 hours of your arrival, all of the same arguments show up, and somehow it's everyone else's fault.
Do you really think I could tell you what I thought of you when you were holding the banhammer over my head? I'm sorry we aren't best buddies, but our entire "relationship" consists of you telling me what to do. That's all you ever do, is tell people what to do. You came back to this site and all ready you have told Philip he's not allowed to talk on your page, you have told Brianco that he's not privy to conversations from those "above his pay grade", you have told Sideways that he's not allowed to change an edit made by Conservative, you have told me that because you start things, only you know the Truth about how they are to be used. You have only been here one day.
I'm just another mean and hateful person? Because I thought that Bohdan can read my talk page to see you are back?
You continually tell me CP is not like Wikipedia, and I continually tell you that I'm not trying to make CP like Wikipedia. I continually tell you that I don't even edit at Wikipedia, and yet somehow everything I do is in the "Wikipedia mindset". I'm not imposing my liberal worldview, I'm not motivated by neutrality, and I'm not using a coverup of liberalism to make desicions. Every single thing I do is to further the encycopedia within the Commandments and every reason I give is backed up by logic. I'm sorry if you don't think these are good qualities for being an admin. I'm sorry if you put yourself out on a limb to back me (which I can only take on your word; I know that Ed has vouched for me because I've actually seen it -- yet another advantage to skipping AIM in leu of the website right here at our fingertips), only to find out that sometimes following the rules means you can't always spew whatever crazy you want. I'm sorry that I'm harming your goal of destroying CP from within by using the rules on CP to rein you in. I'm sorry I gave you a second chance two nights ago, by telling you about what was going on at CP. Had I known that you were really just gathering intel into the power structures so that you could come back and wedge yourself back in, I might have pretended I wasn't home. HelpJazz 23:27, 16 November 2008 (EST)
So the copies of my emails to Andy, that you were copied on, CC, not BCC, months and months ago, are not to you "proof" that I backed you? You really are a despicable person. So, now you admit you are on AIM. Previously you posted you never use it, only did so because I requested it, demanded it. Oh well. --₮K/Talk 23:37, 16 November 2008 (EST)
I don't seem to have any of your emails to Andy. The closest I could find was one where you told me that you forwarded Andy, but I don't actually have any CCs. I highly doubt I deleted them since I have copies of many other random emails from you.
I previously explained that I never use AIM to talk to editors on CP. I still use it for my personal communications. Is that clear now? HelpJazz 00:35, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Your role at Conservapedia

We like you, but we need to rethink your role here. You just now refused (in writing) to use IM for CP business, although the guidelines mandate it. You've carried on a feud with TK - for reasons that frankly baffle me. You've used your blocking powers in ways that I don't understand, while publicly excoriating others for blocks you don't understand.

Would you like to try being an ordinary user for a while, then? Maybe (like Spiderman) you feel the great burden of great power and would thrive as a writer with less of a burden. You're a good writer. I wish you'd do less admin stuff and more writing. --Ed Poor Talk 14:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Wow. Just, wow. Aziraphale 14:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)