User talk:JohnZ

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 12:36, 27 May 2019. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

What is required for you to fully restore your editing privileges if you return after your 5 year block

If you create two quality, well-sourced, original articles of at least 2,00 words on these topics Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda and Christian persecution in communist China, you will fully restore your editing privileges at his wiki. If someone/others create quality content on one or more of these topics at this wiki before you do, an alternative option will be chosen for you. You cannot edit other portions of this wiki until the articles are completed. Conservative (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2018 (EST)

Conservative: Facebook & Twitter need help handing out arbitrary and ideological blocks. Maybe you can get a job there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:41, 7 November 2018 (EST)
John Z:Thanks for copy editing my articles, and for the research material you provided. I believe your block is wholy unwarranted and violates CP rules, but there's nothing I can do about it. Good luck! RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:38, 7 November 2018 (EST)
If memory serves, this was related to a 90/10 rule or JohnZ's overabundance of main page talk posts relative to the value of his contributions.Conservative (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for edit

Thanks for removing the duplicated paragraph in vaccine. I don't know how that mistake happened. Appreciate your correction of it.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

Cheers. Probably just someone experimenting with paragraph order and then getting distracted. JohnZ (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

The User: Conservative account and its number of editors

JohnZ, key question: Did the same person write these articles: Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals and Atheism and women and homosexuality?

Please address both the writing and footnoting styles of the three articles. Also, address any quote box differences. In addition, address any differences in points of view.Conservative (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2019 (EDT)

Let's imagine they were written by different people. That doesn't alter the fact there's a huge (and ongoing) body of work which can be linked directly to a certain gentleman apologist whose name sounds very much like Ben Le Wire.
In fact, I think I'll just call you Ben from now on. Much easier to type than The Apologist Formerly Known As __________. JohnZ (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
Your reply was a dodge. Does the weight of evidence point to the three articles not being largely written by the same person? Please address both the writing and footnoting styles of the three articles. Also, address any quote box differences. In addition, address any differences in points of view.Conservative (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
When Cons gets on a tear involving more than one person (actual people, not his multiple personalities), he sometimes posts his stuff independently to everyone's talk page. You seem to be a victim of the most recent instance of this. So it might interest you to partake of my rather lengthy replies starting at [1]. Cheers, SamHB (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2019 (EDT)
Aye, cheers. I'm inclined to indulge his multiple users gambit. We can't disprove it and it's irrelevant anyway, given the vast amount of writing that can be linked back to his real life identity. JohnZ (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Don't miss this classic rebuttal to SamHB about the User: Conservative account being used by more than one person

SamHB, did you notice that editor of the Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals used the term LGBTQ. Personally, I think the Q is rather redundant so I am not a fan of this term. How often was the term LGBTQ used in other articles created by the User: Conservative account? Of course, this is yet another sign there is more than one editor of the User: Conservative account.

And then there are the stylistic issues of: the footnoting style differences; the quote box differences; the greater tendency to put footnotes in the middle of sentences; the multiple use of the word gay in the article which is a term I rarely use; the dependent clause "as such" used in the beginning of a sentence which I believe I have never done in any of my writings at Conservapedia and finally the multiple use of the word "régime" in the article/page (I may have used the term "regime" in my articles but I never spelled it "régime").

SamHB, it's time to face that more than one editor has used the User: Conservative account.Conservative (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2019 (EDT)

Have you noticed that User: Karajou, who commonly uses check user, has never disputed the notion that more than one editor has used (or uses) the User: Conservative account?Conservative (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2019 (EDT)
Hi Ben. My reply wasn't a dodge - it was a polite way of saying your multiple users gambit is irrelevant. For the avoidance of all further doubt, I hereby concede the logical possibility that people other than you (Ben Le Wire) have edited Conservapedia using your account.
With that said, I repeat: The real life identity of the primary user of the User:Conservative account is well known, and his writing / argumentation style is unmistakable. Hyraxes chewing the cud, etc. No amount of dissembling is going to change this.
Given your astonishing gift for apologist verbiage, any collaborators face an almighty task to wrest the title of primary user away from you. JohnZ (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (EDT)

Conservapedia triumphs over atheist/agnostic wiki

Have you read the essay: Conservapedia triumphs over atheist/agnostic wiki?

"There is no substitute for victory." - Douglas MacArthurConservative (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2019 (EDT)

Two more must read articles: The excitement is raging!

Please read this article: Essay: Conservapedia's effect on the atheist population

Please read this: Essay: The atheism killing atheist wiki that Conservapedia spawned

P.S. I am not tired of winning despite Donald Trump's promise that I would tire of it. :)Conservative (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Glad to hear it, man. For your victory lap (and great justice). JohnZ (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Your recent emotional response to one of my articles

If some of my material relating to atheism makes you emotionally distraught (or in the parlance of SJWs should I say triggered), censorship is not an option. And as British atheists/agnostics have admitted, my material is factual, well sourced and can make good points (see: Essay: British agnostic acknowledges the reasonableness of a User: Conservative editor and Essay: A British atheist on Conservapedia's atheism articles).

I trust this clarifies my position on atheists attempting to censor the material produced using the User:Conservative account (this month an additional editor was added to the editing team).Conservative (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

By the way, I added material to the Atheistic China and baby eating article. The material was from ABC News and The Atlantic (one was a quotation and the other was put in the external link section). I realize this material may not fit your secular leftist narrative and pop the atheist bubble you have encased yourself in, yet the material will not be censored by you.Conservative (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

What is required for you to fully restore your editing privileges if you return after your 3 month block

Upon your return from your 3 month block, if you create one quality, well-sourced, original article of at least 2,000 words on one of these topics Anti-religious Soviet Union propaganda and Christian persecution in communist China, you will fully restore your editing privileges at his wiki. If someone/others create quality content on one or more of these topics at this wiki before you do, an alternative option will be chosen for you. You cannot edit other portions of this wiki until the article is completed.

I am not going to change my position on this matter.Conservative (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2019 (EDT)

By the way, the User: Conservative account is a mixture of Protestant/Catholic editors (I have asked the Catholic editors to refrain from anti-Protestant posts using the User: Conservative account). A message from one of the User: Conservative Catholic editors to the British atheist JohnZ: Deus vult!Conservative (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
Check the original diff and scroll down to the article preview. All the information is still there. I removed a) straightforward duplicate info, and b) the part where you'd copy/pasted the headline and straplines from the article, because it didn't make any sense having them in the body of the blockquote. JohnZ (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
There appears to be a minor disagreement or misunderstanding. I had a hair trigger and assumed the worst when I should not have. I shouldn't have been in a rush. This shows that multitasking can cause issues. For the most part, I have decided to avoid multitasking when possible. The experts on productivity say to avoid multitasking. I short, I overreacted. My apologies. Andy was right in overruling my block. Anyways, leave the article the way it is and let's move on.Conservative (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2019 (EDT)
Aye, no worries. Mistakes happen. JohnZ (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2019 (EDT)

Donald Trump's achievements keep rolling in

The New York Times FINALLY Admits: The World is Turning Nationalist Populist.[2]

The New York Times article admitted that this statement of Donald Trump was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"Conservative (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (EDT)