- 1 same sex marriage revert?
- 2 Vandal
- 3 Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars.
- 4 re: Lenin quote in Bourgeoisie article
- 5 re: your note to me
- 6 Princess and the Frog revert.
- 7 Evolution
- 8 Account promoted
- 9 JohnZ
- 10 I like that
- 11 IRC
- 12 Blocking of User:Misslizzynj
- 13 Length of blocks
- 14 Trolls
- 15 Blocking of User:Whizkid
- 16 Liberal Denial revert?
- 17 Please backup your recent edits
- 18 Islam
- 19 Marijuana article
- 20 Discussing Christian Denominations on This Site
- 21 My Ban
- 22 Sissy punk site
- 23 New show
- 24 Please help defend Catholicism from the baiters!
- 25 Great to see you around again!
- 26 Check this out
- 27 Juvenile Delinquent
same sex marriage revert?
Greetings, and hope you are well. Just wanted to ask, why the revert of my same-sex marriage page edit?
KatieKomori 10:19, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- Thank you. When I see an edit of minus five digits on a page like Republican Party, it's pretty obvious that a vandal swept by. Well done. --Pious (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
- Are you sure that was vandalism? It could have been an inadvertent removal of information when he intended on just adding "pro-capitalism" to the article. I have seen numerous times where this has happened, which an editor adding info but for whatever reason accidently removing a whole bunch of information without even knowing it, and in those other times, it was clearly a mistake. I honestly don't see how it was intentional. I request that you review your block. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (EDT)
Expansion of Greatest Conservative TV Shows and Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies, as well as Star Wars.
I noticed the great job you did in expanding the Worst Liberal TV Shows, and was wondering whether you are planning to do something similar regarding the Greatest Conservative TV Shows and the Greatest Conservative Movies/Worst Liberal Movies lists (namely the opening paragraphs).
Also, since I noticed you're doing a lot of edits regarding Star Wars currently, I was wondering whether you could expand it to include any real life influences on the characters and franchise. I know that the Empire was largely inspired by America during the time of the Vietnam War, and that the Rebel Alliance was based on the Vietcong (in fact, that's actually the reason why I'm, albeit reluctantly, an Empire supporter now, and probably full time as well). I included a bit regarding Palpatine being directly inspired by Richard Nixon, for example. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (EDT)
+== Okay mate, that's enough! If you want to revert my edits then give me reasons that have more veracity than the weasel words you gave in the Summary of one of the pages.
- I have reread the article(s), struggled through TAR's attached blogs, read your Northwest edit history and have realised you have no real understanding or knowledge of the words involved. Nor do you understand it is not advisable to link to non-existent pages which your reverts always do.
- I am about to revert... again! If you revert me without good reason I will ban you.
- AlanE (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2016 (EDT)
re: Lenin quote in Bourgeoisie article
re: Bourgeoisie article
AlanE is acting in good faith about the Lenin quote: http://www.azcentral.com/story/claythompson/2014/10/13/lenin-ronald-reagan-quotes/17226727/
If you want to discuss the matter of the historicity of the quote with AlanE on the talk page of the article, here is a useful resource: 7 habits of highly effective historians
re: your note to me
I respond to your email from me.
Princess and the Frog revert.
Just writing because I'm not sure why you reverted the Princess and the Frog removal from Worst Liberal Movies. The movie promoteshard work and family while condemning hedonism and nihilism and p k it's out the danger of accepting handouts and feeling entitled. This seems to me to be a deeply conservative film. --Whizkid (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2016 (EDT)
- Congratulations! You do very good work on this wiki, which I appreciate. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (EST)
Dear Northwest, I changed your two-year block to 1 day for User:JohnZ. While I do not like profanity, I think that we should show a kind and understanding approach to users who have been around for years. Let's give him a second chance, and if he does it again, then we would be justified in coming down hard. This is a volunteer project, and CP wants to avoid a reputation of long-blocks-at-the-drop-of-a-hat. Thank you for your understanding. JDano (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2017 (EDT)
I like that
Replace "religion" with "ideology™. Because of certain legal issues the US will face in the future, I go out of my way never to refer the a certain collective entity as a "faith" or "religion". " Political system" I use a lot, but haven't of thought of "ideology". We should collect a whole basket of different terms that can be used, and always insert them wherever necessary. Thanks. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 05:10, 2 April 2017 (EDT)
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) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
Blocking of User:Misslizzynj
Length of blocks
Hello Northwest, Andy recently messaged me on my talk page and told me to refrain from using blocks longer than around six months because many people's IP addresses change by then. I see you changed the length of a block for an impersonator of you, and I am not going to challenge that, but please refrain from doing long blocks for non-serious vandalism, per what Andy told me. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (EDT)
Blocking of User:Whizkid
One comment, as blunt and rude as it may have been, is not enough to block a long-time editor for any amount of time. You should have warned him about making such comments first. Don't ever make such a block again.
While I'm commenting here, you realize that the links Democrat Party and Democratic Party link to two different articles? I see that you're changing every link to "Democrat Party" (which I support, for the most part), but you're having every article link to a different article. Please change the links so they link to the actual article about the party, even if you pipe it so the reader sees "Democrat Party." --1990'sguy (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)
- It was made clear to me when I was promoted to Assistant SysOp that this role is only for blocking blatant vandals, not working in good faith. While I haven't carefully studied the issue, he was disputing your changes in good faith. As officially stated, only full administrators are to resolve disputes. Just because you have the block button doesn't mean you should use it whenever someone disagrees. In your defense, edit warring is discouraged, but it takes two to edit war. If you are the one making a change, then it is reasonable to assume that the original version should take precedence until the dispute can be resolved. Please discuss it with an administrator rather than just blocking someone. Should he have kept reverting your changes? Probably not. Should you have kept forcing your change back in? Probably not. Please take it to an admin next time, rather than just abusing the block button. Thank you. --David B (TALK) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (EST)
- First of all, I apologize for being rude. It was a fit of pique, brought on by my feeling you weren't paying any attention to what I was saying. Still, it was inappropriate, and I don't believe you're vandalizing the site, or that you're attempting to be deceitful. So I hope that you can forgive me and we can come to the understanding that, even if we disagree on things, we're both working for what we believe to be the good, and we should treat each other with respect and charity. I hope we can agree on that much at least.
- That being said, I still strongly disagree with your position about this, and don't feel that it's ultimately good for the site, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with you that won't do anything but waste both our time. So maybe we could agree to make our cases before an administrator or someone, for the sake of harmony, and get a decision on this. Let me know what you think.--Whizkid (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (EST)
Liberal Denial revert?
Why did you do this? We know that the ultimate goal of liberals is to do more than just censor Christianity in America. A site made for American conservatives should be about politics as much as it is about religion.
Please backup your recent edits
Please try to either save a copy of your recent edits, or just refrain from editing for the next 24 hours or so. Conservapedia is changing web servers, and there is a risk that pages might be exported before you make the change, meaning your change will be lost. Thanks for understanding! --David B (TALK) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (EDT)
I saw you reverting my edits to the article on Islam. There is a belief system to Islam, but it's more about worshiping an ideology than any God or gods. Even so, the source cited says Islam "…is an amalgam of social, political and judicial systems as well as a belief system. It is neither one thing nor the other – Islam is unique."
Did you see that there was a talk page discussion on the marijuana article about the content in question? I recommend that you explain your reverting there and reach an agreement with the other editors, and I strongly recommend that you leave an edit summary when you revert. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
- Same, an edit summary would really be helpful there to clarify your intent. Did you read the Talk page discussion about how those portions of the lede undermine our argument? Please see Talk:Marijuana#Objections_to_presentation_of_lead. DavidLReyes (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
Discussing Christian Denominations on This Site
I am someone who believes very staunchly in the five solas. I think that Ephesians 2:8-9 indicates the validity of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide, John 14:6 for Solo Christo, and Psalm 115 for Sola Deo Gloria. I am not here to debate religious issues with you, but as you are a high-ranking admin on this site and Catholic, I have to ask you, what would you do if you saw edits to certain articles promoting a Protestant point of view? Shobson20 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (EST)
Hi, I was banned for making edits that I thought were accurate on the Political Spectrum page under my account Classical Liberal. I didn't know how to contact you, so I created this page instead so I could. I'm really sorry. I'm a new user who just registered within the same hour of getting banned, I am a conservative, but I prefer that we take our title of being the liberals back, I'm not a troll, and I'm a student who's interested in politics and all I'm trying to do is inform people about modern conservatives so women and minorities aren't deceived anymore and will come back home to the Republican Party. I don't see how my edits were lies or revisionist history. I was just trying to inform people who wrongly accuse us of what the Democrats did like the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation because they always claim whenever you tell them that the Democrats were responsible for all of it that that's when the Democrats were the conservative party because they think that the parties switched and since I learned that the word liberal was redefined in the 1930s, I also thought the word conservative was redefined as well and that classical conservatism meant modern liberalism now just like how classical liberalism means modern conservatism now. I thought that I should've informed people that the conservatives of the past who the modern liberals pin the actions of on us modern conservatives were the modern liberals because the word liberal was hijacked from us and redefined and they like to accredit modern liberals for the things we classical liberals and modern conservatives actually did before the word liberalism was redefined. They'll argue with us conservatives and tell us that Lincoln would be a Democrat since he was a liberal because they don't realize that he was a liberal when the definitions of liberal and conservative were reversed. They believe the parties were reversed instead. I thought that since we were called the liberals in the past before they hijacked and redefined the term for themselves, they were called the conservatives because they're trying to pin the Trail of Tears, slavery, secession, and segregation on modern conservatives and blame us for it and insist that since Democrats are now called the liberals and Republicans are called the conservatives, that the parties switched rather than the definitions of liberal and conservative. I thought this was the correct explanation since liberals of today whenever you point out the Democrats' history say "that's when the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives and Lincoln would be a Democrat today since the liberal party is the Democratic Party now." They're unaware that when we were the liberal party, that the word liberal did not mean what it does now. I was just trying to clear the confusion that the Democrats created up when they redefined the word liberal and hijacked it from us. I thought that since classical liberalism means what modern conservatism does, classical conservatism must've meant what modern liberalism does now because I thought that since we were called the liberals before the New Deal, that the Democrats must've been called the conservatives then because what else would that have made them if we were called the liberals before the New Deal and conservatives after? If we were called liberals prior to the New Deal, what were they called? Conservatives wanting to keep blacks enslaved and minorities and women oppressed who had a bad reputation and stole our term? And I thought that them stealing the term liberal from us and us having to call ourselves the conservatives instead of liberals which we used to be called was part of their plan to push the party switch myth 30 years later because we have the title of conservative and they have the title of liberal that they stole from us and I thought the Democrats did this to make it look like the parties switched instead of the titles and to make it look like they were the good guys since they're now called "liberals" instead and no longer us which we used to be called until they hijacked the term from us. I thought this was the best way to debunk the claim that modern conservatives of the Republican Party who used to be called liberals prior to the definition switch had anything to do with what the Democrats did in the past. I thought that if being a conservative meant what being a liberal meant before the word was redefined, that being a liberal meant what being a conservative meant because I thought that since the term liberal belonged to us at one time, the term conservative must've belonged to them and that if classical liberalism means modern conservatism, classical conservatism must mean modern liberalism. You see where I'm getting at? I thought that if the word liberal belonged to us at one time, the word conservative belonged to them if we were called the liberals because what is the opposite of liberal? Conservative. And I thought that since the word liberal had a different definition, the word conservative had a different definition too. So I'm sorry if I in your words inserted historical revisionism and lies. That was not my intent. My intent was to clear up confusion, not create it. I want people to stop accrediting modern liberals for what we did and stop claiming that we used to be the Democrats and that the Republicans used to be what Democrats are now which is not true. I'm new to all this and I'm a beginner. I'll probably need some help with editing. I'm still learning my history. History and philosophy and studying the Bible are my favorite things. I'm obsessed with politics. I'm really good at explaining things and I was just trying to help. You could've just let me know where you thought I was wrong instead of slapping a 2-year ban on me. If unbanned, from now on, I will verify with you the things I want to add to pages before I add them so this won't happen again. Please give me another chance. I'm only a guy in his late teens whose been into politics for 7 years now. I share your information with everyone I can and I've convinced many family members to become Republicans while even being disowned by several others which you could just imagine how that makes someone feel. Especially someone my age. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modern Conservative (talk)
- I have unblocked the "Classical Liberal" account. I strongly recommend you first go to the article talk pages before making changes like this before unilaterally making them. Then, we can discuss those changes, which will be helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2019 (EST)
Sissy punk site
Per Jpatt and the late TK, I would try to avoid mentioning that vandal site at all, fair enough? DMorris (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (EDT)
The atheist page has straw man arguments and generalisations against atheism like that atheism is a worldview. You cannot just delete and ban everybody that doesn't agree with you. The evolution page is full of inconsistencies too.
Hey, since you seem to be the most active person on the Greatest Conservative TV Shows page I figured you might want to add Preacher to the page. It is about a disgraced preacher coming back to church and trying to find God.
Please help defend Catholicism from the baiters!
Hi Northwest, if you have the time, can you please look out for the Catholic-baiters on this site (RobSmith, Conservative, VargasMilan, and Shobson20) and rebuke them if need be? They have harshly attacked NishantXavier on his talk page, and it's evident that they spread lies, smears, baiting rhetoric, and mischaracterizations to "prove" their points, which are often times fallacious. Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 15:03, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
- Don't listen to him, he has as much of a victim complex as BLM supporters. Actually, the most mature thing you can do is not get involved in this argument like you have all along. Shobson20 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
- Wait, I have the victim mentality in the same manner of BLM idiots? Need I remind you, Shobson20, for the gazillionth time that you were the one whining immediately after NishantXavier was promoted and you weren't yet? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Thursday, 16:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
The truth is that a Catholic vs. Protestant argument was getting out of hand, so User:Conservative suggested making that debate page to make the debate more structured and civil. Since then, both sides have been mostly talking there, but Liberaltears just can't let things go. Shobson20 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Great to see you around again!
Check this out
Murder for Ratings. I'm fairly certain I put the assault by Jacob Lebron Kelly at a Sanders rally in the February 2020 list of violence. I'm checking it now. RobSFree Kyle! 20:27, 13 October 2020 (EDT)
Here it is https://www.conservapedia.com/Left-wing_violence_in_the_Trump_era_(2020)#cite_note-49 and footnote 50