- 1 Archive 2008
- 2 Archive 2009
- 3 Archive 2010
- 4 Your block policy
- 5 Re:Welcome!
- 6 Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative"
- 7 Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name
- 8 Thanks
- 9 New conservative pages for 2011
- 10 uploading images
- 11 Celebrity crime
- 12 Delete
- 13 Photo upload
- 14 I need you to check your email
- 15 nice reversions!
- 16 Thank you
- 17 Editing the Wicca page
- 18 Stubs
- 19 Mistake of an email
- 20 Ravens
- 21 Religion headline
- 22 Maria Shriver
- 23 user:JimMac
- 24 Raymond Davis Affair
- 25 user:Jefferson
- 26 No rules found for editing a new article
- 27 Uncited Sentences
- 28 revision delete
- 29 Dike!
- 30 Thank you for your kind welcome!
- 31 Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay
Your block policy
I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?
People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not. More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is optional Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?
ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity ;)
Philny 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)
- Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --Jpatt 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)
- Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
- Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
- I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. Philny 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)
- Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--Jpatt 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)
- Hi. My former name was STramp, but you seem to have decided that that cannot be my real name. I'm not quite sure why?StevenTramp 21:23, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --AznBurger 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)
Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative"
- The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--Jpatt 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
- Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. Martyp 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)
Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name
I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --AlaskanEconomy2 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)
- I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --AlaskanEconomy 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)
Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --Toadaron 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)
New conservative pages for 2011
I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --AlaskanEconomy 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
- Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--Jpatt 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)
How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? HPadleckas 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)
- Send to firstname.lastname@example.org--Jpatt 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)
Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --Ed Poor Talk 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)
- Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --Jpatt 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)
Hey Jpatt - I manually copy-pasted move a page from Frankfurt school to Essay:Frankfurt school - but upon examining the content it appears that the original author - CharlieO - copy pasted that from another site. Could you delete both pages? Thanks!--IDuan 18:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
- No problem. --Jpatt 18:57, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
Hi, I would like to upload a photo of myself, I don't have the rights, can you do it for me? Thanks.--SarahWollstone 20:35, 8 April 2011 (EDT) Yes, send to email@example.com --Jpatt 21:19, 8 April 2011 (EDT) Thanks. :)--SarahWollstone 21:23, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
I just sent it to you. :) --SarahWollstone 21:32, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
Thank you. :)--SarahWollstone 21:44, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
I need you to check your email
K? DMorris 23:20, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
- Did you hear? I'm Quick Draw McGraw!--Jpatt 19:54, 2 May 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the helpful links and the welcome. I hope to become a valuable member of the community.
Editing the Wicca page
I would like to formally request that the "murders" section be removed for the reasons stated on the talk page.
- I digress, this is a place to educate others and to warn them to stay clear of witchcraft. Find another topic to edit. --Jpatt 22:30, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
- I have looked at some of the disputed links, and while I don't know enough about the sources themselves to question their reliability, for most of the stories no causal relationship is established between the person's religious beliefs and their actions. One might just as well divide any story about crime between those where the perpetrator was male or female and argue that their gender was the causal factor. WilliamB1 22:41, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
- A person's beliefs and their actions are always tied together whether you agree or not. If Wiccans start making the news for rape, I will start a new section. --Jpatt 23:10, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
Do we use stub tags here on Conservapedia?-StevenTramp 23:46, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
- It's not really recommended or necessary.--Jpatt 19:35, 11 May 2011 (EDT)
Mistake of an email
I noticed you reverted changes made to the Tower of London article that mentioned the legend of the ravens. I know you banned the editor for vandalism, but in this case, the story is true. There is a legend telling that if the ravens at the Tower leave, it portends the downfall of both the Tower and the kingdom. I know it's trivia, but it's fun too and I'd love to see it added back into the article. Here's a link about the story. http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/theravens.aspx SharonW 21:32, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- No problem. Go ahead and add it back.--Jpatt 21:38, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
- Thanks! I'll add the reference too.SharonW 22:36, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
Hi - that's a great news story, but I wonder if I may suggest a small change to the wording? At present is says "study came up with similar findings" but no other findings are listed to be similar too; it's an out of context quote.
I'd suggest saying something like "Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, says a 3-year, multi-million Pound survey conducted by Oxford University." Maybe even add that it is a liberal institution, that offered tenure to Richard Dawkins? TracyS 12:25, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Hi - I noticed you added "Schwarzenegger" for Shriver's last name. I don't believe she ever changed her name legally and has never gone by the name "Schwarzenegger". SharonW 10:25, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
- Ok, I'll remove it. After her divorce she can go from Mrs. Maria Shriver to Ms. Maria Shriver. New age liberals are a joke. --Jpatt 12:19, 20 May 2011 (EDT)
Hi - this user is vandalising articles and constantly reverting me. Please can you show him the door? TracyS 10:52, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Do you know anything of this? The Obama administration evidently invoked Islamic law to circumvent the judicial system in Pakistan to obtain a Blackwater (or whatever) operative in Pakistan only weeks before the Abbotobad raid. People in Pakistan are very upset. The democratically elected regime & military are cooperating with the US because they fear Islamic fundementalism, yet when it suits him, Obama pays $2.3 million in blood money under Koranic law to get a hired mercenary out. Ironic. Rob Smith 20:03, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
- I haven't heard this but it wouldn't surprise me.--Jpatt 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
- Raymond was CIA--Jpatt 20:07, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
I wasn't sure how to contact you other than this, please let me know if there is another way if you would be so kind. I was not aware of the policy against using fact tags, thank you for informing me. I had seen them used in several articles and assumed it was okay. I would appreciate if you would clear something up for me about the citation policy, please: why is it the responsibility of a person who discovers uncited work to find the citation rather than the original poster of the work? I thought it would have been in the spirit of the encyclopedia's "no gossip" rules that statements should be cited and that calling attention to uncited materials would be helpful in clearing the site of gossip. Thanks again for filling me in and not banning me outright to begin with. I appreciate the help!Jefferson 23:25, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
- Jefferson, thanks for the mature response. It is the original poster who is supposed to reference. Our suggestion is if you find questionable content, put it on the talk page. If it can be discussed through, then someone can add a citation. If nobody questions the talk page, feel free to delete the questionable content. Unfortunately, this is not spelled out for new users yet. In the scope of ideology, a liberal would find fault with every conservative sentence. So there may be citation requests on other pages but it is not an acceptable form of contribution here. Let me know if I can be of any help. --Jpatt 23:47, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
- Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? DMorris 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
- I don't know why I didn't think of that. For some reason I thought it was built-in to wikimedia but it's a tag, sure it should be deleted. Will discuss with Aschlafly.--Jpatt 23:52, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
- Perhaps it would be useful to delete the fact tag template all together? DMorris 23:49, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
No rules found for editing a new article
The rules encourage discussion of intent of substantial edit of established articles, and discourage taking liberties of simply substantially editing those articles with no prior discussion. But, I have been substantially editing articles which I have created, and which no one else has either edited or commented on ('invisible' editors). Should I discuss with 'invisible' editors my intent of substantial edits of articles in regard to which they are 'invisible'?PatternOfPersona 21:09, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
- The short answer is no. Discussions will be made upon disagreements. Substantial edits to established articles need not require approval either. Though if you are deleting content instead of adding to or replacing a viewpoint, then you will face resistance from other contributors and reverts. Hope that helps. --Jpatt 21:17, 6 June 2011 (EDT)
"If a sentence needs to be cited please use the "fact" template at the end of the sentence." I'm only following Conservapedia protocol. -StudioFire 00:14, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
I also suggest that you reread the Conservapedia Commandments, which include: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." as well as "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." There should be a Commandment for Ad hoc reasoning, seeing as how that seems to justify much of the content on this site...StudioFire 00:25, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
- That includes you, StudioFire. Karajou 00:56, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
- Thanks for the immature response StudioFail which proves the reasoning on the fact tags. We allow content from liberals but if we let them add citation requests- they'll find something wrong with every page.--Jpatt 10:08, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
What's the point of oversighting vandals if all they do is blank the page?--CamilleT 15:29, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
- Aesthetics, red links are messy. Just so you know, France won the 100 year war between England and most of their colonial wars in Africa.--Jpatt 16:07, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
- :D I've a feeling that French military history is going to be something of a meme around my presence. Someone who dislikes France might say France took their time kicking the British out during the 100 years war. Someone who likes France would then refer you to William the Conqueror. Then we'd be told that William the Conqueror doesn't count, because he wasn't French, he was a Normand. Never mind that because of his conquest of England English courts spoke French for 300 years after his death. The whole subject is rather tired to me. I've never been one for Patriotism, either for France or the USA. I know better than to associate myself with the failures and achievements of others just because we share an ethnic group or political boundaries.--CamilleT 16:18, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
What brought on that reversion to a perfectly innocuous edit? --XavierC 21:12, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
- Just curious as to your intentions. Carry on great patron saint.--Jpatt 21:14, 27 June 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for your kind welcome!
I appreciate it. =) -Melissa Fox, 2011
Regarding "Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform" Essay
I was surprised at the boldness of this essay. Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm? If not, I'd like to suggest you at least read a comprehensive synopsis of it. It has the very famous line "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.", and I couldn't help but feel that your essay had the same viewpoint (except with humans, obviously).
Another quote from the book for you to consider:
|“||Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?||”|
—George Orwell's Animal Farm
Perhaps you can see the slight correlation I made between the your essay and Animal Farm. I do not write this in spite, and I have no malicious intentions...I just thought I'd use my First Amendment right to instigate some casual, intelligent conversation. --LifeHelper 13:38, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
- I did read Animal Farm about 25 years ago. Subconscience-based viewpoint? You are what you fill your mind with but I wrote it due to liberals insistence that Conservapedia be fair. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth, even if nobody believes it. To be fair is to give lies equal time. --Jpatt 13:59, 1 July 2011 (EDT)
- Forgive me for quoting Orwell again;
|“||If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.||”|
—George Orwell's 1984
Food for thought! -LifeHelper 14:27, 1 July 2011 (EDT)