Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jpatt"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Hello! Rule against citation needed tag?: new section)
(1990sguy)
 
(192 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]
 
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]
  
== Blank3r ==
+
== Archive 2012 ==
 +
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2012]
  
Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)
+
== Archive -present==
 +
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/present]
  
==Adambro==
+
== Please unlock ==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
+
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
+
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)
+
  
==RaymondW==
+
Please unlock the [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]] page.  I need to reinstate (uncomment) item #22, to track the reinstated item #22 in the main counterexamples page.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (EDT)
  
Hi Jpatt:
+
:Wow!  That was the fastest response I've ever gotten.  0 minutes.  Thanks a lot.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (EDT)
  
My former account on Conservapedia was named r136a1. The reason you provided for blocking this account is user name policy: please consider recreating your account with a real first name and last initial. Could you please tell me where this policy can be found on Conservapedia? And also, just to clarify, I realize it is not a real name, but it is not a random string of letters and numbers; it is the name of the most luminous star. By the way, your page says that you block liberal fascists; but, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that most agree that fascists are extremely right wing, but liberals are left wing.
+
== Welcome message ==
  
:The username policy is at the discretion of administrators to help combat troll accounts. Please see the link above describing Jonah Goldberg's book for further clues to fascism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:10, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
+
Hello, Jpatt.  I received your welcome message on my talk page—thank you!  So we're on the same page, is it a standard welcome to include the editor's guide links, or did I make an inappropriate edit?  Thanks!  [[User:Crusadestudent|Crusadestudent]] ([[User talk:Crusadestudent|talk]]) 18:09, 7 May 2016 (EDT)
 +
:I've perused the guidelines, and have a question remaining: is there any policy or widespread consensus on the use of "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic"?  Other editors on Wikipedia have engaged in edit wars with me over this, and I would prefer to avoid the dispute here. [[User:Crusadestudent|Crusadestudent]] ([[User talk:Crusadestudent|talk]]) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (EDT)
 +
::Edits were just fine, standard procedure. There will be no edit warring over Catholic or Roman Catholic. Do as you feel is necessary.--Jpatt 21:23, 7 May 2016 (EDT)
  
== Thank you ==
 
  
Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
 
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)
 
  
I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)
 
  
: Also, Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)
+
I deleted my user page, but still appears in the history. Please help me delete my pages at conservapedia.com and my conservapedia.com account. Please delete them.  (data-provider)
:: Once again! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 12:37, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
+
  
== Rubio ==
+
== re: Sam HB's main page talk page commentary ==
  
I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
User: SamHB said on the main page talk page that my archiving on main page talk content was correct. And I couldn't find any error in what I had done.  
  
Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
So I restored what I did.  
  
:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
I haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope things are going great for you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 02:50, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
:I'm hanging in there in this Obama economy, thanks for asking.--Jpatt 10:11, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
== Image upload ==
  
Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
Hello, a user [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests#Creationism_and_politics|requested the upload of several images]], but I was hoping I could get your opinion of a couple. Those two are: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SVP_UDC.svg]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swiss_Peoples_Party.png  and my concern is that they are seem to be copyrighted trademarks. Since CP has no relations to either organization, I'm hesitant to claim "Fair Use."  What's your opinion about this?  Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 19:53, 2 September 2016 (EDT)
  
:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)
+
:Non-free media, "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Good move to pass on this David. --Jpatt 11:07, 4 September 2016 (EDT)
  
== Vandalism ==
+
::Okay, thanks--I just wanted to check. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 12:12, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
  
You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
+
== Daily edit limit? ==
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
+
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)
+
  
== MPR ==
+
Hi again, I have another question for you, if you don't mind.  An editor here says that thay are limited as to how many edit they can make per day.  Specifically, they say that after making six edits, the Edit option <strike>simply disappears from</strike> is replaced with "View Source" in the top bar.  Do you know if this is sometimes done on purpose, or if this is a glitch?  Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 13:10, 7 September 2016 (EDT)
  
Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court.  Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)
+
:''Correction: The edit button becomes a "View Source" button, as if the user was not not logged in, or the page were protected, even though it is not.'' --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 01:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)  
  
==Two issues==
+
::Sounds like a gremlin. What browser is being used? He should sign up for a new account and see if the problem can be duplicated. --Jpatt 09:37, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
*(a) Archive 107 from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index here] mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
+
*(b) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/108 Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108] need to be added. Thanks.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)
+
  
:Noted--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)
+
:::He's using Firefox, (or a spin-off of it, with the same Gecko Engine).  I'll suggest account recreation--thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 10:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
  
== Thanks ==
+
== Merry Christmas ==
  
I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)
+
[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
 +
{{clear}}
  
:You know what they say? Without evil we would never recognize good. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:44, 25 February 2012 (EST)
+
Merry Christmas!  And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (EST)
  
== Hi redneck ==
+
== Conservapedia:New Page Challenge ==
  
You don't have the skills to edit an encyclopedia. Please go, you monumental idiot. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)
+
Please read the talk page of [[Conservapedia:New Page Challenge]]. You made a mistake on the December totals. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 10:18, 6 January 2017 (EST)
::Really, your brain is way too small. You can't write properly. Really. --[[User:Sextertainer|Sextertainer]] 13:48, 28 February 2012 (EST)
+
  
Your mom called, she said you are late for your LGBT counseling. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:23, 28 February 2012 (EST)
+
:It seemed at first that my new pages weren't getting counted either, so I started publishing the pages so they met all the requirements from the beginning. I would then edit as desired.  Does this have anything to do with it?  Perhaps only the actual page creation was counted, with following edits discounted? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 21:20, 7 January 2017 (EST)
  
== Description ==
+
::I'm curious about that too. In order to avoid all my work being deleted due to an internal server error, I only wrote and published my articles in several pieces at a time. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (EST)
  
Hi Mr./Mrs. Jpatt,  
+
:::Whenever you get the chance to reach out, my e-mail is davidb4-cp@archnet.us  Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 12:57, 16 January 2017 (EST)
  
(Please accept my apologies on the ambiguous greeting. Gender is difficult on the web without further research) Could you please give me a description of this web site? I'm writing about online media interfaces for a course at my university and would love to learn more.
+
== IRC ==
  
Thank you,  
+
Hello,<br />
Sarah
+
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009.  It is now registered and somewhat set up.  I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel.  Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering.  In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later.  If you are interested, please let me know!<br />
 +
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net<br />
 +
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:37, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
==Pizzagate==
 +
I appreciate your point.  I guess I have been around Washington DC long enough to worry about a quote being taken out of context.  I don't want to be repetitive, but can we find a way to avoid repeating pizzagate allegations in the voice of CP saying that we accept that they are true? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:15, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
  
:Hi Sarah, try this [[Conservapedia:About]] and read about the wiki founder Andy Schlafly [[Andy_Schlafly]]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 09:05, 2 March 2012 (EST)
+
:Agreed. I am crossing my fingers it's fake news because boy oh boy is it depravity beyond belief. --Jpatt 23:32, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
::Thank you for the information. I will be in touch with Mr. Schlafly shortly. Sarah
+
  
==Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution==
+
::What does this mean? Hold back on the attacks on John Molesta? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]</sup> 13:23, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
Please show them to me. If there are none, please revert my editing of the United States of America page. - [[Rdsmith]] 10:42 (EST), 8 March 2012
+
: "all men are endowed by their Creator," In other words, the same era of people that wrote the Constitution, ratified the Declaration of Independence. I will not remove Judeo-Christian principles from the United States of America page. The Founders put us on the Gregorian calender. This means the Judeo-Christian.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:04, 8 March 2012 (EST)
+
  
::That is the Declaration of Independence, which is not law, it is a deist reference, and to cite Jefferson for Judeo-Christian values is moot (at least) as he created his own Bible where he cut the New Testament to present Jesus as good moral teacher who died. The Gregorian calender was the prevailing calender at the time, and creating a new calender would have been folly. Again, please show me exclusively Judeo-Christian principles in the US Constitution.  [[Rdsmith]] 11:35 (EST), 8 March 2012
+
:::Breitbart got his wish, Podesta is now a household name for unspeakable dregs. Keeping the story neither true nor false is fine by me. I'll be glad to see it end one day. --Jpatt 23:17, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
  
:::Why create a new calender when the Farsi and Chinese calenders already existed? Again, please stop trying to split hairs on the subject between secular and religion. We were not founded as a theocracy and we were not founded as a Godless nation either. The overblown "Jefferson was not religious" lovefest has been debunked already. Your "moot" point that nobody talks about is that Jefferson founded the American Bible Society and paid for the importation of 20000 Bibles. Look at the opening preambles of the 50 state constitutions and their references to God. [http://www.christianindex.org/617.article]. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
+
Dear Jpatt: I have not seen any reliable sources regarding the (since deleted) social media account. If the idea of Pizzagate is the Posdesta and Clinton are involved in a disgusting thing, isn't this issue tangential to the basic idea of the Pizzagate conspiracy?  It is like criticizing Wikipedia, someone may have posted some dirty material at one time, but if you can't access it now or provide links to a reliable archive of the materials, one loses credibility by saying "There were dirty pictures on Wikipedia, but now it's gone and you can't see for yourself."  It is against CP policy to provide links to the stuff. Aren't we merely giving our student readers bad ideas by focusing upon dirty pictures posted on social media rather than the overall narrative sex acts.  If a public figure, such an elected politician or a judge, has a social media account with bad stuff, then CP can properly report on it based on reliable sources.  But if a person who is not a public figure is rumored to have bad stuff on his social media account (which was since deleted), it does not belong on CPThanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:30, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
::::I understand that this story has been circulating for many years in many forms but none of this is true. Jefferson did not found the American Bible Society. Neither he nor Congress paid for 20,000 Bibles to be imported. The 20,000 number comes from a proposed resolution in Congress to import Bibles because there were no printers in the US during the revolutionary war and we were obviously embargoed from importing Bibles during the war. After the war there was a real shortage. Jefferson really wasn't Christian in any sense: he may have believed in his own idea of God but he absolutely didn't accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, his resurrection, the triune person of Christ, etc. These beliefs are central to Christianity as far as I am aware. I may be wrong about whether evangelicals accept the various personages of Christ. Jefferson accepted none of them. I understand the desire of Christian men to associate important figures with their faiths but we wouldn't do this with a villain or a blasphemer and we oughtn't do it with a man who didn't adore Jesus Christ as his lord and savior but only as some random guy who lived in Palestine a long time ago. Nate [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:06, 8 March 2012 (EST)
+
  
:::::I fixed my quote above. Jefferson did respect religion and is quoted praising the Bible. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 8 March 2012 (EST)
+
:The reliable source is James Alefantis own Instagram account archived for all to see. I can provide the link if you can't find it. He is a public figure, having been featured in GQ. He wrote an op-ed for WaPo last week. It's relevant to point out that a person at the center of the conspiracy is of questionable character. And again, he is well connected with the top of the democrat party. It is well documented how the left uses their resources to smear the right. I am for promoting smears against the left. Eventually like all conspiracies, this will become old news such as 9/11 truthers. Until then, the pressure will be kept on. --Jpatt 22:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
  
::::The people living in the colonies were primarily accustomed to a European (therefore Christ-based) calender so using the Farsi or Chinese calenders would be of equal folly. I'm talking about the government of the United States and since the Articles of Confederation has been godless, as for America the nation, I'll agree it is has a strong Christian heritage (then again to question Christianity openly has been taboo until contemporary times).The "godliness" of the constitutions of the colonies range from freedom to religion to religious requirements for office (the latter being specifically opposed by the Constitution in Article VI). You can fixate on preambles all you want, all they state is ends, while I'm look at means, but I looked at the preambles of the constitutions of the states when America was founded, not very Judeo-Christian to me.  
+
::I personally never have used Instagram.  Conservapedia's policy is well grounded in libel law and the ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' case.  I doubt that James Alefantis qualifies as a public figure, even if he was featured in GQ magazine.  Hypothetically, if CP were to publish gossip about Mr. Alefantis and he in turns sues CP for libel, we (particularly the author) would have a tough time defending ourselves. In contrast if Hillary Clinton sued CP for libel, under New York Times v. Sullivan, we would argue that Clinton would have to prove "actual malice" to win the case.  For these reasons, the Conservapedia Commandments should be applied to allow coverage of PizzaGate and the historic fact the Clinton and Posdesta were implicated. We should not name lesser figures, describe their deleted social media accounts, or take a position that the rumors were true.  CP is not a fake news website with hidden ownership.  Rather it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with clear ownership, management, policies and accountability.  If you and Andy want to take the legal risk and lead with your chin, I will not stop you, but I won't donate to the PizzaGate Legal Defense Fund either. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:43, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
  
::::So, for a third time, in the context of " the United States Constitution was written; grounded on republican political principles and Judeo-Christian values," show me the specific Judeo-Christian values in the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. If not, then I can show you the Enlightenment principles the government of this country was founded upon. The Declaration of Independence was based on Locke, but even Locke uses the term "God" as opposed to more deistic references of the Dec. -- [[Rdsmith]] 11:42 (EST) 9 March 2012
+
:::I see your point but dismiss it. You can't have a Pizzagate conspiracy without Alefantis. He is ground zero and deeply woven in with the top of the Democrat party. Lesser known names have become public figures due to notoriety. Threats of lawsuits should not be a determining factor of whether or not to post said accusations. I'm sure he would rather draw less attention to the story than more of it. Nothing mentioned here is unique and can be found on hundreds of websites. Don't concern yourself so much, it seems the story is unlikely to be proven. --Jpatt 17:20, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APizzagate&diff=1331190&oldid=1326581 Actual] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APizzagate&diff=1332669&oldid=1332634 malice], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APizzagate&diff=1332690&oldid=1332689 you say?] As your attorney, PG 65, I advise you to burn that talk page with fire, and to salt the earth behind you. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Go away troll. Talk, talk, talk, no substantial contributions.--Jpatt 21:29, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
  
:::::I told you once but you didn't listen. You asked me three times but I will not respond. Is gay marriage in the Constitution?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 11:59, 9 March 2012 (EST)
+
== Moving Pages ==
  
Would the "exclusively Judeo-Christian (or republican) principles in the US Constitution" include chattel slavery and the fact that people of African descent counted as 3/5 of a human being? [[User:HarveyG|HarveyG]] 12:51, 9 March 2012 (EST)
+
Hello, if I'm not mistaken, you're an admin and capable of moving/deleting pages, and so I'd like to make a request.
  
::::::White men may have purchased slaves but it was black men that sold them. It is liberal to belittle the Founders. With God in their hearts [http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html] the Founders set in motion the most powerful nation on the planet. Liberty, honor, and human rights central. They risked everything and got it right. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:31, 9 March 2012 (EST)
+
Currently, the biblical book of Titus is located on a page called [[Epistle to Titus]], whereas the page [[Titus]] is being used as nothing more then a redirection page to [[Titus Flavius Vespasianus]], a Roman emperor with a very non-comprehensive page. So, I think it's best to move [[Epistle to Titus]] to [[Titus]], as I think the title for the page of the biblical book should occupy its own name, especially since the current page on Titus is just a redirection page. I discussed this earlier on [[User talk:DavidB4]].
  
== Suggestions ==
+
Also, I'd like you to move [[Queen Gorgo of Sparta]] to simply [[Gorgo of Sparta]]. Gorgo was in fact a queen, but that should merely be reflected in the article, not its actual title. I plan to expand this page and the title simply is imperfect and gets in the way. [[Queen Gorgo of Sparta]] should be deleted after the page is removed. Thanks. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
  
Thank you so much for your great work and for the welcome message.
+
:When you get a chance, would you also please do the following, per [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DavidB4#Moving_Pages 1990&#39;sguy's request]?
I am so encouraged to see this truly excellent encyclopedia representing what wikipedia could have been with some serious intellectual honesty.
+
:#Revert the last edit to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=St_Gall&action=history St Gall], which reduced the page to a redirect (I'm not doing it yet, so things don't get too messy)
 +
:#Delete [[St. Gallen]]
 +
:#Move [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=St_Gall&redirect=no St Gall] to [[St. Gallen]]
  
A few suggestions:  
+
:Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:18, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
1) Human Life International has a new president and is undergoing some great improvements in their ministry, including updating  articles and resources.  Perhaps they could be added to your top pro-life websites.
+
::Seems like Andy took care of it.--Jpatt 00:15, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
2) lovefacts.org is a veritable gold-mine of good medical references documenting the harms of induced abortion and contraception, which we need mine to improve many articles on the subject.
+
3) pop.org is the Population Research Institutes homepage; it is a pro-life alternative to PP's Guttmacher Institute, and they expose the myth of overpopulation and the numerous human rights abuses throughout the world in the name of "population control."  Perhaps "overpopulation myth" or something similar would be a good page to refute these widespread errors driving the culture of death and its devotion to abortion and contraception.
+
  
I look forward to contributing in a forum where my input is appreciated and allowed to benefit the souls of all who may read the articles.
+
:::Ah yes, so he did. Thank you anyway. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 13:22, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
[[User:Frankgyn|Frankgyn]] 16:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
+
  
:Awesome, glad to see your interest and feel free to update articles or create new ones. Blessings. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:34, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
+
::Hello, it seems as if I've found another issue. The great emperor Sargon of Akkad has a page on Conservapedia, but it isn't called [[Sargon of Akkad]], it's called [[Sargon the Great]]. This is problematic, as the known name for this emperor is Sargon of Akkad, whereas 'Sargon the Great' is a later nickname developed for Sargon. So, it seems as if [[Sargon the Great]] needs to be moved to [[Sargon of Akkad]], and the page [[Sargon the Great]] should simply be deleted.
  
==Holy Week==
+
:::The "Sargon the Great" page should '''NOT''' be deleted, regardless of what Jpatt chooses to do. More people know of him as "Sargon the Great," and if the redirect is deleted, not as many people will find the article (there are around 400,000 Google hits for "Sargon of Akkad" but over 12 million for "Sargon the Great"). There have been at least two or three times where I've created long articles, only to find that an article on the topic already existed but that the article creator did not create any redirects. Redirects should not be deleted, unless they are vandalism/parody. By the way, I recreated the "Queen Gorgo of Sparta" so people can find that article more easily as well. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
I'll be mostly absent this week. Blessed Easter! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:38, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
+
  
== Reversion of vandalism ==
+
::::I've completed the move, but I agree with 1990&#39;sguy, we should keep the redirect.  Redirects are used for alternate titles, but also for incorrect titles.  The page content is not there, because it is not the proper title, but the content does exist in the linked location. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:51, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
  
I blocked User:ShagMe but I am unable to revert the vandalism due to the spam filter inexplicably preventing me from doing so.  It appears that a series of colons (that I obviously can't type here lest the spam filter get me again) is triggering the problem. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 18:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
+
::: Good idea, I didn't think about the redirect.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
  
== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! ==
+
:::: I've fixed the double redirects except in those cases where the pages were protected, were redirects to deleted pages, or, in one case, were on a User's page.  Would it be possible, when you get the chance, to fix the double redirects on protected pages?--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (EDT)
[[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]]
+
'''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html]
+
  
It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
+
I have come across another request I have for another page move. The ancient figure Herod Agrippa I does in fact have a page on him in Conservapedia, but it's not called as it should be [[Herod Agrippa I]], it's strangely called [[King Herod Agrippa I]]. Now, although Agrippa was in fact a king, his title should not appear in the title of his page. It should simply be mentioned in the contents of the page. For example, we don't name our pages "President Barack Obama", we simply name them [[Barack Obama]] and note in the page that Obama was a president. So, [[King Herod Agrippa I]] should be moved to [[Herod Agrippa I]], whereas the other page should simply be a redirect (it's the other way around right now).[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (EDT)
  
== Thanks for removing the It Gets Worse link from the Anti-Semite website! ==
+
== Of all the news in Uzbekistan... ==
  
Thank you for removing the link to the It Gets Worse page, from a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic "Southern Conservative" website which blames the Jews for Communism, feminism, Facebook, and Psychoanalysis. I hate anti-Semitism, and I know Conservapedia doesn't endorse it either. I know it was a mistake that you posted the link first, but I looked at the website (Jett and Jahn media), and I was disgusted at the anti-Semitism and racism they espouse. They even have downloadable games which show the Ku Klux Klan as good guys! These guys give conservatism a bad name, and they are thankfully nobodies in the conservative movement.  
+
Of all the news in Uzbekistan, video games?  (I don't think the crazy Hizb ut-Tahrir militants play video games. Law won't make much of a difference, considering how few people in O'zbekistan own game consoles.) What about the change in exit visa policy?  They are officially going to drop the exit visa no later than 2021 (Inoyatov was really opposed to dropping them).  It's a great step in the right direction. (Exit visas are basically a way of making it really hard for people to leave their country, most notably DPRK)--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
  
You are indeed a great editor, who learns from his mistakes like any decent human being! Conservapedia forever! -[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]] June 18, 2012
+
:There is a debate raging whether violent games have an effect on impressionable youth. The story is not so much about the Uzbeks but more about recognizing that video games do have an influence on youth, especially if they are ultra-violent. I don't think the Sims would qualify though.--Jpatt 20:11, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
  
:I have notified [[Jewish Internet Defense Force]]. Thanks again for pointing that out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:00, 18 June 2012 (EDT)
+
== Honours & decorations ==
==Thanks==
+
Thank you. Changes made. You may lock the page again if you wish. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 21:32, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
+
  
== Malaysian woman shooter. ==
+
John "PG 65" Patti: NLR, WAFA, ACFM, TITGP (with oak clusters)
  
"but is there any discussion from NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, WaPo, LAtimes on the athlete in question?."
+
Wear them with pride. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:15, 7 July 2017 (EDT)
Yes, yes there is.:
+
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48371542#.UBSe4XilgUQ NBC/MSNBC]
+
*[http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/baby-boom-malaysian-olympian-months-pregnant-16868986#.UBSe-XilgUQ ABC]
+
*[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-33747_162-57481389/baby-boom-malaysian-olympic-shooter-is-8-months-pregnant/?tag=mncol;lst;1 CBS]
+
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=157479015 NPR]
+
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/pregnant-malaysian-shooter-relieved-not-to-go-into-labor-finishes-34th-in-10m-air-rifle/2012/07/28/gJQACQhtFX_story.html WAPO]
+
*[http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/la-sp-oly-pregnant-shooter-20120729,0,5371824.story LA Times].
+
[[User:RayM|RayM]] 22:30, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
+
  
:I stand corrected. Nice job.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:40, 28 July 2012 (EDT)
+
== Your block of "MaintainerOfFacts" ==
  
== What do you mean? ==
+
Hello Jpatt, I saw that you blocked "MaintainerOfFacts" for "vandalism", but I do not see how [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_myths&curid=46117&diff=1360207&oldid=1360206 this user's single edit] was vandalism. Would you please explain? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
What do you mean when you said this: ''Thank God you registered here to set the record straight'' when I posted my opinion on the Obama birth certificate issue on the talk page. I am a cynical person and I usually interpret responses from people I do not know to be sarcastic, I may be wrong, but what was your intention?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 13:04, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
:It seemed odd but I think you might be right here. Unblocked.--Jpatt 21:40, 11 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
== Expansion of right-wing material on the internet ==
  
:Your assertion about Obama's life and conspiracies are just opinions not based on facts. We know little to nothing about Obama and to claim "proven beyond a doubt" is just absurd. The man is a serial liar, his view of America and of capitalism is foreign to most. He may or may not be a natural-born. His secrecy prevents the rest of us from knowing for certain anything about him. Call it a conspiracy theory, I'm not offended but don't act like you have the facts because nobody does.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:22, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
*[https://www.axios.com/the-partisan-explosion-of-digital-news-2279022772.html The recent explosion of right-wing news sites]
  
{{cquote| The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. - Patrick Henry}}
+
*[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube Why the Right Is Dominating YouTube] - Vice News
::"We know little to nothing about Obama" Are you counting the facts about his life mentioned in ''Dreams from My Father''?  Or do you think that part or all of his autobiography is untrue?  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:33, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
  
:::You believe 36 discrepancies? [http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/unreal-over-3-dozen-discrepancies-found-in-barack-obamas-dreams-of-my-father-video/] You can't trust a liar in small matters and surely you can't trust a liar in big matters.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HndA5MoxK08 Why the Right is Dominating YouTube (A Response to Vice)]
::::I'm sorry I can't give a full reply right now; I would like to take some time to check out the book and the video rather than jumping to conclusions as is standard for the [[hearsay society]].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:06, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
:::::Well, I didn't read either book and I have no interest. I can comment without being accused of acting like the hearsay society. Jumping to conclusions is kind of odd given the facts - Obama is a known liar. You either give him a pass about his past statements, which is a guide to his character or you're not  prepared to comment because you want to hear both sides first. I have made up my mind and he is guilty of whatever accusation is tossed at him. Am I right? I'll await your research. If I am wrong, I'll ask for forgiveness. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
  
:Our party recently had famous Austrian-born actor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] as California Governor. State governors can be foreign-born, and our party whether we like it or not has selected a foreign-born man to run for governor. The birth issue as you've said is un-confirmable and isn't it '''''more important''''' that Obama is ruining our country with his high tax goals and taking away individual rights on health care? Why not put the unconfirmed birth issue in the main body of the article - it's not like all conservatives agree with the birthers, conservative writer [[Ann Coulter]] doesn't agree with the birthers - see here from Fox News: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRaWMwX68A] - the person who posted the video seems to be a birther because they are anti-Coulter, but she is a well-known conservative writer and she completely rejects the birther argument. Why not have the intro focus on Obama's tax-and-spend, and anti-individual-rights agenda in his health care policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 18:02, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
*[https://www.nctv.nl/binaries/psychological-effects-of-right-wing-and-islamic-extremist-internet-videos_tcm31-30177.pdf Psychological effects of right-wing and Islamic extremist videos] - Netherlands and German report
  
::I don't see the problem. In my opinion is that Obama's position on a child born from a botched abortion is to be left to die is just plain evil. Maybe that should be the second sentence. Regardless, this is not my encyclopedia. You are certainly free to make changes but we do frown upon deleting material. So rearrange as you see fit. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
+
I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.  
  
== Thank you! ==
+
I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development.  With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century [[desecularization]] occurring, the trend is bound to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
 +
==1990sguy==
 +
Indeed 1990sguy has been stalking me today.  He systematically reverts my changes without reading them.  He judges edits based on the amount of bytes changed rather than seeing the good editing leads to fewer bytes to say the same idea in a less wordy, confusing way. Please tell him to stop and be considerate. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:18, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
:@JDano: I am not stalking you. I am reverting edits I legitimately think are bad. You are adding liberal bias into articles. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361005&oldid=1351490 You called "constitutional carry" a "propaganda term".] And you added language casting a negative light on it.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361043&oldid=1361042] If you stopped adding liberal bias to articles and stopped constantly reverting me without going to the talk page, I would not do what you call "stalking." --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:25, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::In addition, JDano, you frequently mention on issue in your edit summaries, when you actually make numerous changes. When I revert you, giving a reason, you revert me back without explaining why I was wrong. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361030&oldid=1361029 This edit] was made well into the edit war, but you did not explain why you supported these edits, even though I made myself clear in previous edits that I opposed these changes. In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361039&oldid=1361035 this edit], you write as your edit summary "moved a bit on the capitalization", but you make the same edits I opposed. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Constitutional_carry&diff=1361032&oldid=1361031 Here], you stated that because I strongly opposed your edits, I should not edit the article. I have seen similar behavior from you in multiple other articles ([[fake news]], [[travel ban]], [[Donald Trump achievements]]). I want to work with you, but how can I with this behavior? --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (EDT
 +
:::By my definition, you are stalking / hounding me.  I go to a page and start editing it.  Each time I go back to make the next batch of changes, I find that you mindlessly have reverted the edits that I have made so far.  If you find yourself having strong feelings or your ego has become engaged while working on Conservapedia, go take a break or work on something else.  I am not "adding liberal bias" to articles.  Sometimes less is more.  We are here to write an encyclopedia that is free of the liberal bias found on Wikipedia.  We are not hear to grind any political axe.  If I finish revising an article and then someone comes along with a different viewpoint in terms of how the article is to be presented, I will discuss it calmly on the talk page.  There is no point in going to the talk page in the middle of the editing.  I also note that you did not leave any talk page comments today.  Again, I would ask my long-time colleague JPatt to read the diffs from today. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:37, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::So, calling constitutional carry a "propaganda" term, deleting a factual explanation of its legal basis and putting a statement stating it causes "confusion", and arbitrarily labeling Breitbart articles opinion sources is not adding liberal bias? And contrary to what you stated, me reverting your edits has '''nothing''' to do with myself or my "ego". I legitimately think your edits are bad, and because relatively few people edit CP, if someone is going to correct those edits, it has to be me. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
  
Cheers for unlocking the LSD article for me, much appreciated. Little bit busy right now so might not get round to it till tomorrow [[User:Sambiam|Samb]]
+
Maybe it appears that I am taking sides. But I watched you on multiple occasions messing with 1990sguy edits. So yes he is doing the same back I suppose. I just don't want to see the project abandoned by petty back and forth edits and reverts. Encourage edit, not discourage edits. Talk page and dispute resolutions with the input of others is favored to the constant revert warring. The pattern needs to change now. --Jpatt 12:19, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 
+
:One big problem I have with JDano and his editing style is that I have found, through interacting with him, he is not willing to make concessions. At all. I remember the dispute I had with him on the Donald Trump achievements article over the Breitbart source. I gave in to him on changing the wording and adding several other references. However, he continued demanding the removal of the Breitbart reference and would not stop until essentially every other editor sided against him. I have made concessions to him on the other articles, including this one. I am not "mindlessly" reverting everything he does, and JDano has been helpful in some ways. The problem is that it seems that he takes an all or nothing approach (or close to that approach) to his edits. It makes resolving these issues very difficult. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
== Go Question Evolution! USA!  USA! USA! USA! ==
+
::JDano is continuing to revert on the constitutional carry page without going to the talk page. Please, make him stop this. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
 
+
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/our-north-america-initiatives-are.html Creationist benchmark is hit and exceeded in the United States]
+
 
+
[[Creation Ministries International]] breaks through key USA key benchmark!  The first Question evolution! sound barrier has been breached. Watch the campaign grow faster and faster and faster.  USA! USA! USA! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:19, 8 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
[[File:Sound barrier.jpg|center|200px]]
+
== Liberal users ==
+
I having trouble with two liberal users who are insisting on hiding known facts. Could you please explain to them that this is not allowed here. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 20:15, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Craig, I know the feeling. They come here to poke holes in everything and are determined to show they are right and conservatives are wrong. There is not much you can do. Eventually, they will get bored with attacking you and move on. Fact tags stuff is nonsense here. They can spend all day fact tagging every page. Their lazy butts need to do a search for the answer or leave the statement alone. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:26, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
+
::I agree, but you are an administrator and while I can fight the good fight, some of these people threaten to block me and abuse me, calling me a liar and so forth.  Take a look at what one of these guys wrote at [[On the Road]].  That this family friendly website would allow such glowing praise for an intensely liberal book which supports drug and alcohol abuse, deviant sexual pleasure and rejection of Jesus, makes me sick. I'd delete it, but MattyD would probably get his crony brendan to block me. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 11:02, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Ad Hominem attack ==
+
 
+
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACraigF2&action=historysubmit&diff=1006355&oldid=1006354 here]. While I know you might not like Sharon too much, and that you do not get along together very well, I must ask you to please refrain from ad hominem attacks. These comments only serve to inflame discussion even more. Thank you for understanding,
+
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:22, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Who said I don't like Sharon or that we don't get along? Craig has created more pages in his short time here than Sharon has. She is busy with U.S.A. wiki. When somebody attacks new users with a superiority comment--I take sides. She is not being helpful and your attention to Craig is not creating a welcoming environment. We all want perfection but there is no test here. Fix what is wrong and shut up. Telling someone to go read some more books, maybe you should tell Sharon to ease off instead of me. Thanks for understanding. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)
+
:: I was polite the first time, but since you have not returned that courtesy, I must repeat it, ''sans'' good faith. You, are not merely creating a belligerent environment, but also defending your actions in creating that environment. Given that you literally warned another user of their [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CraigF2&curid=123273&diff=1006345&oldid=1006332 snarky and inappropriate comments[, I cannot imagine you are responding in good faith. I therefore repeat: Use common courtesy, when communicating with editors, or about them.
+
 
+
Note: I am aware of your prolonged attacks against that "USA" wiki, and while your actions are quite indefensible, I have restrained from speaking about it. Clearly you couldn't afford Sharon that same respect though..[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
:<font color="grey">Trolling redacted</font>. Good luck with your bizarro world talk. I see Matty took your advice #fail --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
+
::I see you are still steamed. Get over it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:38, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
+
:So you saw my comments on that place?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:40, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
+
::Never heard of it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:43, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
+
:::oh.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 17:47, 27 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
== "Fluff" ==
+
 
+
J-the edits I made removed fluff and apologies, and removed duplicate material to make a stronger argument. I would really like to see where you think I softened the criticism: what specific passages do you object to? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Find another page :) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:00, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Hey! New user, hoping to contribute usefully ==
+
 
+
Hey, Jpatt, I just found Conservapedia and am eager to jump in and help contribute any way I can. Are there any articles that need cleaning/proofing/citing or anything else I could help out with?
+
 
+
Blessings of the Almighty on you :) [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 23:06, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Thanks a million. My page has a list of items I haven't touched in some time if you feel so inclined. What brought you here if I may ask? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:54, 2 October 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I actually heard about both this site and another from a middle-ideology news site that promoted you as "conservative kooks" and the other website (can't remember the name, started with an R, I think) as "liberal morons." I checked them both out, found I agreed with you guys on many theological points and with the other guys on a lot of scientific ones. Got kicked off of their site for being too religious and noting how they treated Christianity unfairly, so I decided to see how tolerant you are over here. So far, looks promising. :) [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 07:49, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Also (sorry for double-post), would it be alright for me to note Revelations 20:13 on the [[Salvation]] page? I note that it makes no mention of it, despite the verse pretty clearly referring to the possibility of salvation through works at the End of Days. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 07:51, 3 October 2012 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Apology ==
+
 
+
Greetings.  You may recall, from our email communication a while back, that there was an activity that we both agreed would be unethical, and that I said that I was fairly sure I had never done it.  Looking over everything carefully, I see that I did do it one one occasion.  I'm not going to call attention to it. I'm sorry, and I won't do it again. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:58, 8 November 2012 (EST)
+
 
+
:No apology necessary. Thanks for being considerate. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:17, 8 November 2012 (EST)
+
==Blogs==
+
I see that you re-added the external link to Bert's blog.  I personally do not think that the blog is among the top external sources available to CP readers.  But if you disagree, I certainly won't get into an edit war with you over it. In general, I feel that CP editors should not link to their own blogs, because this is typically a disservice to our readers and hurts CP's reputation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 12:11, 22 November 2012 (EST)
+
:I somewhat can agree with your position. I would prefer that links to blogs would not make it to the frontpage. Spamming pages with links to blogs is unacceptable as well. Here and there links are ok in my Op.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:16, 22 November 2012 (EST)
+
 
+
==A serious Biblical matter==
+
 
+
Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
+
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
+
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
+
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}
+
 
+
I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself!  The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.
+
 
+
I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted:  any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.
+
 
+
I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky.  As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an  insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one)  as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.
+
 
+
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)
+
 
+
:Since translation efforts have been limited to a handful of people over the centuries, I have an open mind to explore it from a different angle. I stand with what the Church dictates so I am not going to give the new insight any backing. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:38, 25 November 2012 (EST)
+
 
+
::Thank you for your straightforward answer. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:55, 26 November 2012 (EST)
+
 
+
==Note==
+
I added two new requests to [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]]. Thanks. --[[User:Qw|Qw]], 26 November 2012
+
 
+
== Hello! Rule against citation needed tag? ==
+
 
+
Hi :)
+
Just wanted to ask, is there a rule against putting the "citation needed" tag on this website? I noticed that I few of my edits where I added it have been rolled back. Is there a rule regarding citation needed that I'm not aware of? Please let me know, as I only wish to be a positive influence on the site. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 20:02, 30 December 2012 (EST)
+

Latest revision as of 10:52, 14 July 2017

Archive 2008

Here

Archive 2009

[1]

Archive 2010

[2]

Archive 2011

[3]

Archive 2012

[4]

Archive -present

[5]

Please unlock

Please unlock the Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity page. I need to reinstate (uncomment) item #22, to track the reinstated item #22 in the main counterexamples page. SamHB (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (EDT)

Wow! That was the fastest response I've ever gotten. 0 minutes. Thanks a lot. SamHB (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (EDT)

Welcome message

Hello, Jpatt. I received your welcome message on my talk page—thank you! So we're on the same page, is it a standard welcome to include the editor's guide links, or did I make an inappropriate edit? Thanks! Crusadestudent (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

I've perused the guidelines, and have a question remaining: is there any policy or widespread consensus on the use of "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic"? Other editors on Wikipedia have engaged in edit wars with me over this, and I would prefer to avoid the dispute here. Crusadestudent (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (EDT)
Edits were just fine, standard procedure. There will be no edit warring over Catholic or Roman Catholic. Do as you feel is necessary.--Jpatt 21:23, 7 May 2016 (EDT)



I deleted my user page, but still appears in the history. Please help me delete my pages at conservapedia.com and my conservapedia.com account. Please delete them. (data-provider)

re: Sam HB's main page talk page commentary

User: SamHB said on the main page talk page that my archiving on main page talk content was correct. And I couldn't find any error in what I had done.

So I restored what I did.

I haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope things are going great for you. Conservative (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

I'm hanging in there in this Obama economy, thanks for asking.--Jpatt 10:11, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

Image upload

Hello, a user requested the upload of several images, but I was hoping I could get your opinion of a couple. Those two are: [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swiss_Peoples_Party.png and my concern is that they are seem to be copyrighted trademarks. Since CP has no relations to either organization, I'm hesitant to claim "Fair Use." What's your opinion about this? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 19:53, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

Non-free media, "Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." Good move to pass on this David. --Jpatt 11:07, 4 September 2016 (EDT)
Okay, thanks--I just wanted to check. --David B (TALK) 12:12, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

Daily edit limit?

Hi again, I have another question for you, if you don't mind. An editor here says that thay are limited as to how many edit they can make per day. Specifically, they say that after making six edits, the Edit option simply disappears from is replaced with "View Source" in the top bar. Do you know if this is sometimes done on purpose, or if this is a glitch? Thanks! --David B (TALK) 13:10, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

Correction: The edit button becomes a "View Source" button, as if the user was not not logged in, or the page were protected, even though it is not. --David B (TALK) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
Sounds like a gremlin. What browser is being used? He should sign up for a new account and see if the problem can be duplicated. --Jpatt 09:37, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
He's using Firefox, (or a spin-off of it, with the same Gecko Engine). I'll suggest account recreation--thanks! --David B (TALK) 10:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Merry Christmas

cebter

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. Conservative (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2016 (EST)

Conservapedia:New Page Challenge

Please read the talk page of Conservapedia:New Page Challenge. You made a mistake on the December totals. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2017 (EST)

It seemed at first that my new pages weren't getting counted either, so I started publishing the pages so they met all the requirements from the beginning. I would then edit as desired. Does this have anything to do with it? Perhaps only the actual page creation was counted, with following edits discounted? --David B (TALK) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (EST)
I'm curious about that too. In order to avoid all my work being deleted due to an internal server error, I only wrote and published my articles in several pieces at a time. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (EST)
Whenever you get the chance to reach out, my e-mail is davidb4-cp@archnet.us Thanks! --David B (TALK) 12:57, 16 January 2017 (EST)

IRC

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B (TALK) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Pizzagate

I appreciate your point. I guess I have been around Washington DC long enough to worry about a quote being taken out of context. I don't want to be repetitive, but can we find a way to avoid repeating pizzagate allegations in the voice of CP saying that we accept that they are true? Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Agreed. I am crossing my fingers it's fake news because boy oh boy is it depravity beyond belief. --Jpatt 23:32, 12 April 2017 (EDT)
What does this mean? Hold back on the attacks on John Molesta? RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 13:23, 13 April 2017 (EDT)
Breitbart got his wish, Podesta is now a household name for unspeakable dregs. Keeping the story neither true nor false is fine by me. I'll be glad to see it end one day. --Jpatt 23:17, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Dear Jpatt: I have not seen any reliable sources regarding the (since deleted) social media account. If the idea of Pizzagate is the Posdesta and Clinton are involved in a disgusting thing, isn't this issue tangential to the basic idea of the Pizzagate conspiracy? It is like criticizing Wikipedia, someone may have posted some dirty material at one time, but if you can't access it now or provide links to a reliable archive of the materials, one loses credibility by saying "There were dirty pictures on Wikipedia, but now it's gone and you can't see for yourself." It is against CP policy to provide links to the stuff. Aren't we merely giving our student readers bad ideas by focusing upon dirty pictures posted on social media rather than the overall narrative sex acts. If a public figure, such an elected politician or a judge, has a social media account with bad stuff, then CP can properly report on it based on reliable sources. But if a person who is not a public figure is rumored to have bad stuff on his social media account (which was since deleted), it does not belong on CP. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

The reliable source is James Alefantis own Instagram account archived for all to see. I can provide the link if you can't find it. He is a public figure, having been featured in GQ. He wrote an op-ed for WaPo last week. It's relevant to point out that a person at the center of the conspiracy is of questionable character. And again, he is well connected with the top of the democrat party. It is well documented how the left uses their resources to smear the right. I am for promoting smears against the left. Eventually like all conspiracies, this will become old news such as 9/11 truthers. Until then, the pressure will be kept on. --Jpatt 22:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
I personally never have used Instagram. Conservapedia's policy is well grounded in libel law and the New York Times v. Sullivan case. I doubt that James Alefantis qualifies as a public figure, even if he was featured in GQ magazine. Hypothetically, if CP were to publish gossip about Mr. Alefantis and he in turns sues CP for libel, we (particularly the author) would have a tough time defending ourselves. In contrast if Hillary Clinton sued CP for libel, under New York Times v. Sullivan, we would argue that Clinton would have to prove "actual malice" to win the case. For these reasons, the Conservapedia Commandments should be applied to allow coverage of PizzaGate and the historic fact the Clinton and Posdesta were implicated. We should not name lesser figures, describe their deleted social media accounts, or take a position that the rumors were true. CP is not a fake news website with hidden ownership. Rather it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with clear ownership, management, policies and accountability. If you and Andy want to take the legal risk and lead with your chin, I will not stop you, but I won't donate to the PizzaGate Legal Defense Fund either. Thanks, JDano (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
I see your point but dismiss it. You can't have a Pizzagate conspiracy without Alefantis. He is ground zero and deeply woven in with the top of the Democrat party. Lesser known names have become public figures due to notoriety. Threats of lawsuits should not be a determining factor of whether or not to post said accusations. I'm sure he would rather draw less attention to the story than more of it. Nothing mentioned here is unique and can be found on hundreds of websites. Don't concern yourself so much, it seems the story is unlikely to be proven. --Jpatt 17:20, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Actual malice, you say? As your attorney, PG 65, I advise you to burn that talk page with fire, and to salt the earth behind you. JohnZ (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Go away troll. Talk, talk, talk, no substantial contributions.--Jpatt 21:29, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Moving Pages

Hello, if I'm not mistaken, you're an admin and capable of moving/deleting pages, and so I'd like to make a request.

Currently, the biblical book of Titus is located on a page called Epistle to Titus, whereas the page Titus is being used as nothing more then a redirection page to Titus Flavius Vespasianus, a Roman emperor with a very non-comprehensive page. So, I think it's best to move Epistle to Titus to Titus, as I think the title for the page of the biblical book should occupy its own name, especially since the current page on Titus is just a redirection page. I discussed this earlier on User talk:DavidB4.

Also, I'd like you to move Queen Gorgo of Sparta to simply Gorgo of Sparta. Gorgo was in fact a queen, but that should merely be reflected in the article, not its actual title. I plan to expand this page and the title simply is imperfect and gets in the way. Queen Gorgo of Sparta should be deleted after the page is removed. Thanks. Korvex (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

When you get a chance, would you also please do the following, per 1990'sguy's request?
  1. Revert the last edit to St Gall, which reduced the page to a redirect (I'm not doing it yet, so things don't get too messy)
  2. Delete St. Gallen
  3. Move St Gall to St. Gallen
Thank you! --David B (TALK) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
Seems like Andy took care of it.--Jpatt 00:15, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Ah yes, so he did. Thank you anyway. --David B (TALK) 13:22, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Hello, it seems as if I've found another issue. The great emperor Sargon of Akkad has a page on Conservapedia, but it isn't called Sargon of Akkad, it's called Sargon the Great. This is problematic, as the known name for this emperor is Sargon of Akkad, whereas 'Sargon the Great' is a later nickname developed for Sargon. So, it seems as if Sargon the Great needs to be moved to Sargon of Akkad, and the page Sargon the Great should simply be deleted.
The "Sargon the Great" page should NOT be deleted, regardless of what Jpatt chooses to do. More people know of him as "Sargon the Great," and if the redirect is deleted, not as many people will find the article (there are around 400,000 Google hits for "Sargon of Akkad" but over 12 million for "Sargon the Great"). There have been at least two or three times where I've created long articles, only to find that an article on the topic already existed but that the article creator did not create any redirects. Redirects should not be deleted, unless they are vandalism/parody. By the way, I recreated the "Queen Gorgo of Sparta" so people can find that article more easily as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
I've completed the move, but I agree with 1990'sguy, we should keep the redirect. Redirects are used for alternate titles, but also for incorrect titles. The page content is not there, because it is not the proper title, but the content does exist in the linked location. --David B (TALK) 16:51, 2 May 2017 (EDT)
Good idea, I didn't think about the redirect.Korvex (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
I've fixed the double redirects except in those cases where the pages were protected, were redirects to deleted pages, or, in one case, were on a User's page. Would it be possible, when you get the chance, to fix the double redirects on protected pages?--Whizkid (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I have come across another request I have for another page move. The ancient figure Herod Agrippa I does in fact have a page on him in Conservapedia, but it's not called as it should be Herod Agrippa I, it's strangely called King Herod Agrippa I. Now, although Agrippa was in fact a king, his title should not appear in the title of his page. It should simply be mentioned in the contents of the page. For example, we don't name our pages "President Barack Obama", we simply name them Barack Obama and note in the page that Obama was a president. So, King Herod Agrippa I should be moved to Herod Agrippa I, whereas the other page should simply be a redirect (it's the other way around right now).Korvex (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Of all the news in Uzbekistan...

Of all the news in Uzbekistan, video games? (I don't think the crazy Hizb ut-Tahrir militants play video games. Law won't make much of a difference, considering how few people in O'zbekistan own game consoles.) What about the change in exit visa policy? They are officially going to drop the exit visa no later than 2021 (Inoyatov was really opposed to dropping them). It's a great step in the right direction. (Exit visas are basically a way of making it really hard for people to leave their country, most notably DPRK)--IluvAviation (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

There is a debate raging whether violent games have an effect on impressionable youth. The story is not so much about the Uzbeks but more about recognizing that video games do have an influence on youth, especially if they are ultra-violent. I don't think the Sims would qualify though.--Jpatt 20:11, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Honours & decorations

John "PG 65" Patti: NLR, WAFA, ACFM, TITGP (with oak clusters)

Wear them with pride. JohnZ (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Your block of "MaintainerOfFacts"

Hello Jpatt, I saw that you blocked "MaintainerOfFacts" for "vandalism", but I do not see how this user's single edit was vandalism. Would you please explain? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

It seemed odd but I think you might be right here. Unblocked.--Jpatt 21:40, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Expansion of right-wing material on the internet

I know Twitter bans and shadow bans right-wingers.

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century desecularization occurring, the trend is bound to continue. Conservative (talk)

1990sguy

Indeed 1990sguy has been stalking me today. He systematically reverts my changes without reading them. He judges edits based on the amount of bytes changed rather than seeing the good editing leads to fewer bytes to say the same idea in a less wordy, confusing way. Please tell him to stop and be considerate. JDano (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

@JDano: I am not stalking you. I am reverting edits I legitimately think are bad. You are adding liberal bias into articles. You called "constitutional carry" a "propaganda term". And you added language casting a negative light on it.[7] If you stopped adding liberal bias to articles and stopped constantly reverting me without going to the talk page, I would not do what you call "stalking." --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
In addition, JDano, you frequently mention on issue in your edit summaries, when you actually make numerous changes. When I revert you, giving a reason, you revert me back without explaining why I was wrong. This edit was made well into the edit war, but you did not explain why you supported these edits, even though I made myself clear in previous edits that I opposed these changes. In this edit, you write as your edit summary "moved a bit on the capitalization", but you make the same edits I opposed. Here, you stated that because I strongly opposed your edits, I should not edit the article. I have seen similar behavior from you in multiple other articles (fake news, travel ban, Donald Trump achievements). I want to work with you, but how can I with this behavior? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (EDT
By my definition, you are stalking / hounding me. I go to a page and start editing it. Each time I go back to make the next batch of changes, I find that you mindlessly have reverted the edits that I have made so far. If you find yourself having strong feelings or your ego has become engaged while working on Conservapedia, go take a break or work on something else. I am not "adding liberal bias" to articles. Sometimes less is more. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is free of the liberal bias found on Wikipedia. We are not hear to grind any political axe. If I finish revising an article and then someone comes along with a different viewpoint in terms of how the article is to be presented, I will discuss it calmly on the talk page. There is no point in going to the talk page in the middle of the editing. I also note that you did not leave any talk page comments today. Again, I would ask my long-time colleague JPatt to read the diffs from today. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
So, calling constitutional carry a "propaganda" term, deleting a factual explanation of its legal basis and putting a statement stating it causes "confusion", and arbitrarily labeling Breitbart articles opinion sources is not adding liberal bias? And contrary to what you stated, me reverting your edits has nothing to do with myself or my "ego". I legitimately think your edits are bad, and because relatively few people edit CP, if someone is going to correct those edits, it has to be me. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Maybe it appears that I am taking sides. But I watched you on multiple occasions messing with 1990sguy edits. So yes he is doing the same back I suppose. I just don't want to see the project abandoned by petty back and forth edits and reverts. Encourage edit, not discourage edits. Talk page and dispute resolutions with the input of others is favored to the constant revert warring. The pattern needs to change now. --Jpatt 12:19, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

One big problem I have with JDano and his editing style is that I have found, through interacting with him, he is not willing to make concessions. At all. I remember the dispute I had with him on the Donald Trump achievements article over the Breitbart source. I gave in to him on changing the wording and adding several other references. However, he continued demanding the removal of the Breitbart reference and would not stop until essentially every other editor sided against him. I have made concessions to him on the other articles, including this one. I am not "mindlessly" reverting everything he does, and JDano has been helpful in some ways. The problem is that it seems that he takes an all or nothing approach (or close to that approach) to his edits. It makes resolving these issues very difficult. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
JDano is continuing to revert on the constitutional carry page without going to the talk page. Please, make him stop this. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2017 (EDT)